ANCIENT INDIAN SEMANTICS

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar

Source: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute , 1970, Vol. 51, No. 1/4
(1970), pp. 11-29
Published by: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688671

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41688671?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANCIENT INDIAN SEMANTICS*
By

Ashok Aklujkar

1. 1
The present paper is a study of ancient Indian semantic1
comparative point of view, the comparison being with the s
that has developed in relatively recent times in the West.8 Wit
rison in mind, one could study Indian semantics in two ways
could compare its history, as far as it is known, with that of
semantics, and ( ii ) one could select certain problems of semantic
either in the Indian tradition or in the western tradition and examine
whether those problems have been raised in the other tradition and, if
raised, how they have been raised and discussed. The first way would
take the research to a study of some facts of literary history and of
ideas about semantics while the second would take him to a study of
ideas in the semantics. In the present paper I plan to follow the first
way ; I shall here compare the histories of Indian and Western
semantics.
1. S
The present study is thus very ambitious in its scope and cannot
help being sketchy rather than thorough. However, since it tries to

* Paper read in the South Asia ( linguistica and philology ) section of the
Twenty-seventh International Congress of Orientalists. The author is grateful to
Dr. Ronald E. Asher ( University of Edinburgh ) for suggesting stylistic improvement!
in the first draft of this paper.
1 I use the word c semantics ' in the sense 6 study-science-general theory of
meaning ' I do not include in semantics the study-science-general theory of
reference-referent-denotatum. The problem of the relation between reference and
meaning which is a border-line problem and which is perhaps as important in the
study of meaning as it is in the study of reference, is not excluded from semantics by
the restriction of the term Semantics ' in the above manner. There is no reason why
we should treat any related branches of human knowledge as water-tight compart-
ments. For the history of the word ' semantics 'f see Read ( 1948 ). N oreen uses the
term c semology ' ( Malmberg 1964 : 124 ) which is again taken up recently by Joos
( 1958 ). German linguists usually prefer the term ( semasiology ' ; cp. Kronasser
( 1952 ). For a distinction between semasiology and onomasiology, see Malmberg
( 1964 : 124 ).
2 For the sake of brevity, I drop the adjectives ( ancient ' and c modern-
relatively recent ' from the phrases ' ancient Indian' and < modern-relatively recent
western ' in the following pages. I am aware of the fact that the West also has sn old
tradition of semantic thought.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1Ž Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

cover a large number of facts and aspects it may help in having a correct
perspective of Indian semantics. It may, perhaps too broadly, indicate
the peculiarities of the Indian semantic tradition, the amount of credit
or discredit that the Indian tradition should historically receive and thi
degree of the relevance the Indian tradition has to modern western
semantics. This paper is thus an introduction to Indian semantics1 and
a contribution to the history of linguistics.
1. S

One could begin the comparison either from the point of view of
the Indian tradition or of the western tradition ; that is, one could start
with the facts known about either tradition and try to see whether any-
thing corresponds to those facts in the other tradition and, if something«
corresponding is found, to what extent the correspondence goes. I have
preferred to start the comparison from the point of view of the western
tradition. My preference has been governed by some practical consi- v
darations. In the first place, more is known about the western tradition
than is about the Indian tradition ; it facilitates understanding and :

1 There is no paucity as such of material on Indian semantic thought. What i«

lacking is a clear, well-ordered and comprehensive treatment of this subject in,
rigorously chosen English by a mind that has full grasp of the Sanskrit Sftsttic
' theoretical ' texts and profound awareness of the relevance of this áubject to
problems in modern linguistics and philosophy. Writings of Chakravarti ( 1930, 19 331 )*
Gaurinath Sastri ( 1959 ), Bhattacharya ( 1962 ) and Pandeya ( 1963 ) are disappoint-
ing frpm this point of view though they are sufficiently comprehensive and have "
helped some scholars in approaching the original Sanskrit texts. Kunjunni Raja
( 1963 ) is aware of the importance of the subject for modern studies, writes in terms
clearer than those of his predecessors and offers some interesting observations ; but the
order of his discussions is not always satisfactory and the statements of the *rgu- ~
ments advanced by different Indian schools of thought have not been given adequate :
place in his book. He devotes insufficient space to the discussion of Bhartrhari's
views and does not present them in the light of Bhartrhari's philosophy as a whole.
In general, his book suffers from its impressive scope. Biardeau ( 1964), in contrast ,
to Kuujunni Baja, devotes almost half of her book to the discussion of Bhartrhari's
views but does not point out the relevance it has to modern linguistic and philoso-
phical thinking. Her assumption that the FVM »-commentary on the Väkya-padiya -,
is not from Bhartrhari's pen, is unjustified ( see Aklujkar forthcoming ) and has led
her to asserting a number of unconvincing and unwarranted fine theoretical distipc- .
tions between the views of Bhartrhari and that of the so-called var¿¿»-commentator.
Her book is a mine of interesting philological data in the field of linguistic philosophy .
of the Indians ; but one can not always be sure of her interpretation of the texts and i
of the conclusions she arrives at. Both Biardeau and Kunjunni Raja give a very
helpful bibliography on Indian linguistic tradition in general which can be supple-
mented by Ruegg ( 1959 ) and Staal ( 1960 ). A remarkably clear and accurate account. .
of the semantic thought in Sanskrit poetics is given in the Marãthl edition of ř
Mammata's Kãvya-prakãêa by Arjunwadkar and Mangrulkar ( 1962 ). , »

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 13

gives a better judgement of the relevance if Indian

the light of western semantics. Secondly, the w
not present the problem of interpretation of te
which the Indian tradition, because of its ancient ch
of its current interpretations, presents it. It is
something that is relatively far more certain tha
is, at least for the present, subject to different int
the semantic problems have been raised more ex
tradition than in the Indian tradition. If therefore we start with the
western tradition before us, we have a better chance of making comments ř
about well-defined topics than we would otherwise have. Finally, more
factual information is available about the western semantic tradition
than is about the Indian semantic tradition.1 So, if we start the comp
rison with the western tradition in view, the move enables us to stu
the Indian semantic tradition from more points of view than we wou
otherwise be able to. For all these reasons I have decided to look at
the Indian semantic tradition from the point of view of the wes
semantic tradition, though my first and better acquaintance has
with the Indian semantic tradition and though the other point of
proves to be more profitable and convenient in some other compar
studies of Indian semantics.

1.4
In many places I speak of the Indian semantic tradition in general.
My main reliance, however, is on Bhartrhari's Vâkya-padïya 2 which is
the earliest available ( fourth century A. D. ) and extensive work of
Indian semantics. Though it is not primarily devoted to semantics and ,
though it makes no claim of originality of views, it is perhaps the most -
important work in what survives of the Indian semantic tradition ; it
has influenced the ideas of all later Indian semanticists and deals with
the semantic problems quite extensively though semantics is but one
part of its scope. Most of the evidence for what I want to point out .
comes from this work. As I am concerned here with broad
comparisons between two traditions and not with the
of individual ideas back in time in any one tradition, I do no
necessary either to be exhaustive in my references when I make
point or to find out the earliest evidence in support of what
sufficient for my present purposes to produce some textual evid
a particular point made in connection with either tradition.

1 These last two points should be added to the points in section 2 of

2 In my opinion, the name of Bhartrhari's magnum opus , taken as
Trihãndi ; the title Vãkyapadiya applies only to its first two books. See Aklujkar •>
( forthcoming ). I also hold the view that the vrtti is Bhartrhari's work and that it is
an inseparable part of the Vãkyapadiya ( see footnote 1 on p. 12 )#

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Í4 Ánnals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

1. 6

So far I have used the expressions ' Indian semantics ' and i Indian
semantic tradition ' without raising the question whether there is any
referent for these expressions. We know for sure that the West has a
branch of study named ' semantics ' which has been distinguished from
some other branches of study at least from Bréal's time;1 but such a
fact has not been as yet established in the case of the Indian linguistic,
logical or philosophical tradition.2 I therefore have to answer the follow-
ing four questions before I proceed with the use of the expressions
1 Indian semantics ' and 'Indian semantic tradition'; ( i ) Is there any
body of Sanskrit literature that is exclusively concerned with the study
of meaning ? ( ii ) If such a body of literature exists, does it have any
specific name ? ( iii ) Are all the topics that are topics of semantics in
the West discussed in this literature ? That is, how much justified is
the transfer of the word 'semantics' to the Indian scene ? ( iv ) Is the
qualification ' Indian ' necessary ? What is distinctively Indian about
this semantics ? Or, is it Indian only because it developed in India ?
What follows the present introductory section in this paper and
many more papers on which I am working at present, are an indirect
answer to the last two questions. By studying the information that I
supply there and by judging the logic that I use there, the reader can
decide for himself how far the transfer of the word ' semantics ' is justi-
fied and how far the Indian semantics is ť Indian ' As for myself, I
answer both the questions in the affirmative ; I think that there is
enough similarity between the western semantics and the Indian studies
of meaning to justify the latter's being referred to by the term
1 semantics ' ; I also think that there are certain historical, methodologi-
cal and expressional peculiarities of the semantics that developed in
India3 to justify its being qualified by the adjective 'Indian '
Before I touch upon the first question, it would be worth point-
ing out that we need not have a body of literature that is exclusively
devoted to the study of meaning to be justified in saying that a language

1 Bréal introduced the terna ť sémantique 1 in an article in 1883 for the first time
( Malmberg 1964 : 123 ). His ' Eassai de sémantique . science des significations 9 was
first published in 1897. Ullmann ( 1966 : 217 ) informs us that in 1820's Reisig had
thought of ' semasiology
2 Staal ( 1966 : 304-311 ) points out that if the Indian ideas are presented in a
careful manner the existence and the relevance of Indian semantic thought would be
acknowledged. As will be noticed below, my approach is different in that I assume
the existence of semantic ideas in the Indian tradition and try to prove the
existence of a body of literature devoted to what we refer to as semantic problems
or topics.
3 This point should be added to the points in section 2.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 15

or a tradition has semantics. Even wh

language or tradition is tied to studies of
scattered through different systems of
results of such study are not brought toge
can say that the language or the tradi
existence of semantic thought is a more
the grouping. In the western tradition, w
number of discussions that are exclus
meaning is smaller than the number of
have appeared in the systems of philo
poetics. Even to-day semantics is consid
of all these systems. It is still spread ou
subject matter is such that it would rem
what is important is the existence of cer
under one distinctive heading.

The Indian semantic tradition is ve

semantic tradition in the distribution of li
The Indian semantic thought is to be fo
linguistics ( vyãkarana 'grammar') but
exegesis ( Mímãmsã ), philosophy ( m
major schools and the Buddhist and the
Vai$esika) Buddhist and Jain Nyãya)
kãvya-éãstra ). The only science that is
this did not develop as a system in anci
viveka , Abhidhã-vrtti-mãtrlcã , Éabda-
éabda-Šakti-prakáéiJca and vrtti-vãrtti
study of meaning. Works like Sphota-sid
Sphota-vãda and Tattva-bindu are primar
of signification and hence with such im
role of phonemes and morphemes in
language and the Indian tradition have an
that is concerned with the study of meani

We do not, however, find any old spe

study of meaning in the Indian traditio
Sanskrit corresponding term that bas so
ntics ' ( Staal 1966 : 306 ). It can, howev
Indian tradition most probably did not
study of meaning, it did consider from
linguistic forms and the study of meaning
linguistic knowledge- intimately conne

1 Add this point to the points in section %

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
16 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

important and too extensive not to have recognition às mutually

distinct bodies of knowledge. Theoretically form and meaning are not
absolutely separable, but there is so much to be said about form and so
much about meaning that the study of form and the study of meaning
ihould form separate bodies of linguistic knowledge. That this was
the attitude of ancient Indian linguists can be gathered from the
following facts : ( i ) The Pãninlyas distinguish between the rüpa-
■ formal ' aspect of grammar and the artha - 1 semantic ' aspect of
grammar. Works like Astãdhyãyí , Mahãbhãsya , Kãéikã , Siddhãnta -
kawmudî and Šabdendu-éekhara are always distinguished from works
}ike Sangro, ha, Vâkya-padîya , Sphotasiddhi , Vaiyäkarana-bhüsana
And Vaiyäkarana-siddhänta'laghu-maftjü8ä. The latter are concerned
not only with meaning but also with what we now refer to as the philo*
Bophy of language and the philosophy of grammar ; but the emphasis is
always on the study of meaning -lexical as well as grammatical, (ii)
Panini who describes the Sanskrit language mainly through forms,
fhows awareness of many semantic notions ; but he does not make them
the laksya * subject-matter' of his work. He utilizes them only when
they pave the way to broader grammatical generalizations and hence to
increased simplicity of description. He seems to have assumed that
the semantic notions which he utilizes are the subject-matter of a
system that is different from the system of formal descriptive grammar.
( iii ) The Mirriãmsã is a very old school of Indian philosophy. It»
primary concern on the theoretical level has always been the problems
of meaning and interpretation. It has never been confused with formal
grammar. ( iv ) The Sanskrit kãvya-kãstra ' poetics ' is a linguistically
oriented system. It discusses many topics which we would now include
in semantics. Perhaps it contains the best of Indian theorizing about
meaning. Explicitly and implicitly this kãvya-sãstra borrows a number
of ideas from the grammarians and has, for this reason, been referred to
as vyãkaranasya puccham ' the tail of grammar ' It is worth noticing
that a study of meaning has been considered to be an extension of a
study that is mainly devoted to linguistic forms and has not been treat*
ed as a part of the latter. ( v ) In the kãvya-sãstra itself we find a
division of figures of speech based on the division of form and meaning.
Such a division is present even in the oldest available texts of the
system. This fact can very well be an indication of the desire for rela-
tively independent treatment of form and meaning that the ancient
Indian thinkers of language had. Thus it will be clear that in ancient
India the study of meaning was distinguished from the study of lingui-
stic forms, though the former appeared as a part of some related body
of knowledge. Works concerned purely with the problem of significa-
tion, it seems, did not appear until after Xnandavardhana ( ninth
çentury À. D. ), the author of thç Dhvanyãloka.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 2fff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 17

t. 1
Two attitudes are noticeable in some of the western studies of the
problem of meaning. Bloomfield and some of the linguists influenced by
him seem to consider any satisfactory solution of the problem of mean-
ing almost an improbability.1 Philosophers like Quine ( 1953 : 47-64 )
show the direction in which one should approach the problem of mean-
ing but do not actually tackle the problem ; instead, they try to keep
philosophical analysis clear off it if they can.2 There is nothing
wrong with one's being aware of the difficult nature of the problem one
is trying to solve. Similarly, there should not be any objection if an
investigator feels that a particular area of knowledge is a mess and
should be avoided. I would even concede that if one accepts Bloomfield's
concept of meaning, it is indeed impossible to solve the problem of mean-
ing in a way that would satisfy a scientific mind. One fact, however,
emerges clearly. A sort of defeatist attitude is implicit in the remarks
especially of Bloomfield - and it has had its effect on the western
linguistic tradition, especially in the United States ; the study of mean-
ing was neglected for some time.
This defeatist attitude does not seem to be a result of the various
notions of meaning that were then current. Nor does it seem to be a
result of the various meanings of the word 4 meaning' which are still
current. It seems to be a result of the wrong approach to the problem,
of the confusion of meaning with reference3 and of the behavioristic
trend.4 The approach was wrong in the following way. Bloomfield

i ť The statement of meaning is therefore the weak point in language-study,

and will remain bo until human knowledge advances very far beyond its present
state '.
« Since we have no way of defining most meanings and of demonstrating their
constancy...'
« Although the linguist cannot define meanings, but must appeal for this to
students of other sciences or to common knowledge...' ( Bloomfield 1933 : 140, 144,
145 ; see also 1943 ).
2 1 ... (if we are to admit such things as meanings ) ... ' ( Quine 1960 : 201 ).
Moreover, Quine ( 1953: 48 ; 1966: 200) argues in favor of replacing the word
6 meaning ' by the words ' synonymous ' and ť significant '.
• That Bloomfield has confused meaning with reference is evident from his
statements in which he expresses the view that accurate statements of meaning are
not possible without an accurate scientific knowledge of the speaker's world and
from his calling an utterance of ( apple ' etc. an instance of deviant speech when an
apple etc. are not present. See note 1 above.
4 Bloomfield's behavioristic bias is too clearly expressed in his writings and
has been too often pointed out in the studies of his thought to need any indicatory
proof. His theory of meaning is a stimulus-response theory ( Alston 1964 : 26 ).

3 [ Annals, B. O. R. I. ]

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
18 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

assumed that every word in language must have a definite meaning and
that there could be no truly scientific theory of meaning as long as we
are not able to define the meaning of each word (Kunjunni Raja 1963:4);
but as Frege ( transi. 1952 : 42 ) says, ' One cannot require that every-
thing shall be defined, any more than one can require that a chemist shall
decompose every substance or as Russell ( 1940 : 29 ) says, • It is no
more necessary to be able to say what a word means than it is for a
cricketer to know the mathematical theory of impact and projectiles '
Further, Bloomfield misses the point that semantic systems are man-
made and autonomous, that circumlocution is not a make-shift device
for stating meanings but the most effective royal road ( Weinreich
1966 : 192 ).
In the Indian tradition we find various notions of meaning
( Kunjunni Raja 1963 : 69-74, Bhartrhari 2. 119-137 BSS pp. 132-139 ).
The Sanskrit term that corresponds to English ' meaniug ', namely
' artha ', does not have exactly the same number of meanings, but defi^
nitely has enough to cause confusion.1 Occasionally, though not as
commonly as in the western tradition, we find meaning understood as
reference.2 Still there is no expression of a defeatist attitude, no trace
of having given up the problem of meaning in despair. There is a con-
founding variety of views on almost all important theoretical problems
in semantics3 and quite a few instances of both genuine and deliberate
misunderstandings and misrepresentations;4 but the pursuit of mean-
1 See the dictionaries of Sanskrit by Roth-and-Böhtlingk, Monier Williams,
Apte etc. For the meanings of c meaning', see Ogden and Richards ( 1953), Abraham
( 1963 ), Fries ( 1954 : 62-63 ) and Read ( 1955 ).
2 For example, Sabara ( 1. 1. 5 ) : ' syãc ced arthena sambandhah krura-
modaka- àabdoGGãrane mukhasya pätana-pürane syãtãm . ' ť If there were any natural
relationship between a word and its meaning, the word ' razor 1 would cut the mouth
and the word ' sweet cake ' would fill it '. This statement is a part of the argument
to which Sabara does not subscribe. It is based on a wrong under*
standing of the Mtmãmsã position on the part of Sahara's philosophical advers
When the Mimãmsakas say 1 aulpattikas tu šabdasyarthena sambandhah ' they just
wish to point out that it cannot be told when exactly the relation between word
and meaning came to be established. The Mimãmsã doctrine of autpattika éabdã-
řtha-sambandha and the Vyãkarana doctrine of nitya or anãdi-siddha éabdõrtha -
sambandha are essentially the same ( see Bhartrharťs vrt ti on 1. 23, p. 59 ).
3 Even a perusal of the books by Kunjunni Raja and Bhattacharya would
convince one of this point.
4 For example, Kumarila's arguments against the grammarian's view of
indivisible sentence meaning. They seem to be a result of confusion of meaning
with reference -at least as far as Bhattacharya's ( 1962: 33-37 ) exposition
of them goes. It is not uncommon to find in Indian philosophical texts that that
interpretation of a philosophical adversary's theory is chosen which can be best
attacked. Interest in polemics and tendency of treating philosophical discussions as
a game for sharpening one's wits cannot be said to be entirely absent in the Indian
tradition, Bee note 2 above.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 19

ing in all its aspects continues -undetered a

of detail. This is particularly true of th
discussed a number of individual cases from
meaning till very recent times.
S. «
The immensity of the problem of meaning, the chaos of termino-
logy, aversion for anything that smacked of mentalism1 and perhaps a
¡confusion of meaning with reference2 led some of the linguists in the
American branch of western linguistics to think of excluding meaning
from linguistic analysis. It should not be supposed that such an
exclusion was actually achieved or was theoretically justified to such
an extent as to convince every contemporary American linguist of its
correctness. Nor should Bloomfield be considered to be an advocate
of this exclusion of meaning ( Fries 1954 : 57-60, 1962 : 212-216 ). On
should also be careful about what one exactly means by 'linguist
analysis'; in the discussion of this point it should include only t
discovery procedure and not the description procedure ; for, most of th
linguists of any tradition would agree that considerations of mean
should not dominate grammatical description and nothing would b
distinctive about the efforts of Bloch ( 1948 : fn. 8 ) and Harris (1952 : 1
1954 : 39-42 ) if they insisted only on this principle of linguistic descrip
tion. As Fries ( 1962 : 216 ) has observed :
' A number of American linguists... who have been considerably
influenced by Bloomfield, have tried to go beyond him in the exclus
of meaning - at least they have proposed, as a theoretical possibilit
the total exclusion of the use of meaning in analysis. No examples
descriptive analysis accomplished on this basis have appeared '
In the Indian linguistic tradition we do not find any instances o
linguistic analysis achieved without the use of meaning. We do n
even notice any trend in this direction. In theory we always fi
meaning given the status of a basis for determining the phonemes
morphemes, grammatical categories etc. Anvaya-vyatireka , finding
distinctive features of linguistic expressions through binary oppositi
is an age-old method in India. The grammarian or the linguist proce
to apply it in the following way : ( i ) The meaning of a linguis
1 Katz ( 1964 : 124-137 ) discusses the type of mentalism that is harmful to
true science and points out how the Bloomfieldian attack on mentalism was
misdirected.
2 Bar-Hillel ( 1954 : 203-237 ) does not exactly hold that confusion of mean-
ing and reference led linguists to think of excluding meaning from linguistic
analysis ; according to him, it led linguists to disregard meaning - the linguists
thought that questions of reference ( truth etc. ) do not fall within linguistics.
Quine ( 1953 : 47 ) is of the opinion that confusion of meaning with reference had
encouraged a tendency to take meaning for granted.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
20 Annals of the Bhandarhar Oriental Research Institute

expression as the native speaker understands it, is never to be ques-

tioned.1 ( ii ) If there is an expression ( usually a sentence or a com-
pound) of the form * x y ... ' with a meaning of its own and 1 x 1 y ' •••
are accepted as possessors of meaning in themselves, then ťx', ťy'..«
are the pada units of the language.2 The linguist uses the technique
of checking the changes in meaning with the presence and absence of
what he postulates to be a pada* Such pada-apoddhãra * picking up
of the padas ' is frequently done by the speakers of the language on the
level of communication. The linguist who is not using the language
but studying it and for whom the level is that of analysis, however, goes
a step further than a speaker of the language in his capacity as a
speaker goes.4 ( iii ) He studies the various situations in which the
padas occur, notes the relations in which they stand to each other and
tests if some elements in the padas can be linked to the relations in a
systematic way. If he finds a system of relations and of formal ele-
ments in the padas , he accepts the elements as linguistic units, for the
relations they regularly express are associated with them as meanings
are with the padas . The elements are the pratyayas and the remain-
ing parts of the padas are the prakrtis .5 This is prakrti-pratyaya -

1 In the following places, Helãrãja, the author of the Prakirnaka-prakã&i I,

makes it clear that grammatical rules do not invest expressions with meanings
but that they merely follow the meanings of expressions as understood in the
linguistic community : 3. 7. 61 ; 3. 8. 2 ; 3. 9. 100, 110 ; 3. 10. 8 ; 3. 13. 12, 31 ; 3. 14, 33,
42, 53, 119, 154, 155, 192, 193, 194, 308, 408, 413, 547, 584.
2 ť artha-dvãrena ca pada-pariksã. - Helãrãja, 3. 1. 2, p. 10 ; * tad evam art ha -
dvãrena pade pariksyamãtie...1 - Helãrãja, 3. 1. 48, p. 57. 6 tatrãpoddhãra-padãrthah
... anvaya-vyatirekãbhyãm riipa-samanugama-kalpanayã Samudãyãd apoddhrtãnãm
áabdãnãm abhidheyatvenãériyate . ' vrtti 1. 24-26, p. 65.
3 * anvaya-vyatirekãbhyãm hi viêiçtãrtha-êabdãvadhãranam. ' - Helãrãja,
3.1.87, p. 8 5 6 yathãrtham parikalpitãnvaya-vyatireka-nibandhano vãkgavãdinâm
padãpoddhãrah . Helãrãja, 3. 1. 1, p. 2.
* It should be noted that the prakrti-pratyaya-apoddhãra is called ' êãatriya ' :
»... sãstrlyãnvaya - vyatireka - nimittãrthãpoddhãra - vašah prakrti - pratyayãdya -
poddhãrah - Helãrãja, 3. 1. 1, p. 2 ; 6 yathaiva vãkyãt padãrtha-pravibhãgena
vy avahãr ah kriyate , tathã padãd api prakrti-pratyayãdyapoddhãrena êãstre bhüyän
vyavahãro dréyate .' - vrtti 2. 164-165. Some instances of pada-apoddhãra in ordinary
life and in contexts other than that of the discovery procedure, are noted in
Trikãndi 2. 72-87.
5 * èiddham tvanvaya-vyatirekãbhyãm. ... iha vrkça ityukte kaicicchabdah srüyate ,
Vrksa-ûabdo 5 kãrãntah sakãras ca pratyayaht artho'pi kaécid gamy ate. ... vrkçãv
ity ukte kašctcchabdo hiyate , kaécid upajãyate , kaécid anvayi . ... ekatvam hiyate ,
dvitvam upajãyate , mula - skandha-phala - palãsa-vãn anvayi . te manyãmahe yah
éabdo hiyate tasyãsãv artho yo Wtho hiyate , yah kabda upajãyate tasyãsãv artho yo *
rtha upajãyate , yah êabdo'nvayi tasyUsãv artho yo'nvayi. 1 - Patañjali, 1. 2. 45.
Vol. I p. 21Ô. See also 1. 3. 1. 6, Vol. I p. 255 ; 1. 3. 1. 5, 6, Vol. I p. 255; and the
remarks quoted in footnote 4 above.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 21

apoddhãra. ( iv ) The anvaya-vyatireka tes

prakrtis also. The linguist finds that the pra
convey the meaning that is associated with th
out from them, if they are wholly or partly pr
deviant way or if some new element is introd
realises that the elements that go into the ma
role in the conveying of meaning even though
with them as individual entities.2 He accep
units of language, varnas, thus again using
vyatireka of meaning. In this way meanin
discovery procedures in the Indian tradition
the theory of linguistic analysis. There have b
meaning from linguistic analysis though, as
Indian grammatical tradition knows, there ha
on meaning in the available linguistic descrip
is thus essentially the position taken by Fries ( 1954 : 60 cp.
1962 : 215 ) :

'... on all levels of linguistic analysis certain features and types

of meaning furnish a necessary portion of the apparatus used... I do not
mean to defend the common uses of meaning as the BASIS of analysis
and classification, or as determining the content of linguistic definition
and descriptive statement. ... The issue is not an opposition between
NO use of meaning whatever, and ANY and ALL uses of meaning
0. S

A natural consequence of the tendency in the West toward gett-

ing rid of meaning in linguistic analysis and of the oft-repeated point
that meanigs are mental entities of some kind was the feeling that
semantics does not legitimately belong to the field of linguistics, that it
should better be included in some other branch of knowledge, say,
psychology or the science of signs. The very first sentence of Garvin's
article in 1958 contains the explicit phrase, the oft-repeated position
that we cannot handle meaning linguistically../; one of Voegelin's arti-
cles ( 1949 ) is significantly titled as ' Linguistics without meaning and
culture without words ' ; in a recent article ( 1967 ) McCawley starts
with the comment that semantics is considered to be a nebulous area in
transformational grammars and concludes that ' ... it is high time for

1 See Patañjali's discussion ( on Pratyãhãra-sãtra 5, vol. I pp. 30-32 ) of the

following vãrttilcas : e varna-vyatyaye cãrthãntara-gamanãt ' varnãnupalabdhau
cãnartha-gateh ' and i varna-vyatyayãpãyopajana-vikuresvartha-darêanãt '.
2 ' ... manyãmahe ' narthakã varnã iti , - Patañjali, Pratyähära-sütra 5, vol, I
p. 31 ; ' sãstrãrtha èva varnãnãm arthavattve gradar hit ali 6 yathaivãnarthahaif
varnair ... ' - Trikãndi 2. 210, 410.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
22 Annals of the Bhanctartcar Oriental Research Institute

linguists to grant to semantics the status as an integral part of lingui-

stics which has hitherto been denied to it by most ' ; in his survey of the
glossematic school of linguistics Spang-Hanssen ( 1962 : 132, 135 ) takes
pain to establish that glossematics does not exclude semantics.
This type of situation did not arise in India. There semantic
thought was always a prime concern of all the systems that were
concerned with language. This is perhaps partly due to the fact that
psychology, especially that of the behavioristic type, did not develop in
India and partly to the fact that the Indian thinkers of language were
never bogged down by the problem of meaning ; they never considered
it to be a ' nebulous ' area, which, in turn, is due to the fact that a
correct approach ( see para. 2 under 2. 1 above ) to the problem of
meaning was taken from very early times in India.
2.4
In the western tradition semantics has been usually thought of as
à part of the general science of signs. Saussure's ( 1916 : 33 ) term for
the latter is ' semiologie ' while later writers generally prefer the term
• semiotics ' Peirce's writings have proved to be a great impetus for the
development of semiotics in the West. He divides semiotic theory into
pure grammar, logic proper and pure rhetoric ( pp. 135-136 ) and he
divides signs from three points of view ( pp. 142-146 ), the most im-
portant division being the one into icons, indices and symbols. Morris
(1938, 1946 ) carried further Peirce's point of view and made significant
contributions in terms of scope of semiotic discussions, variety of the
view-points adopted in studying the operations of signs and the terminò-
logy of semiotics. His division of semiotic theory into syntactics,
semantics and pragmatics ( 1938 : 84-85 ) is especially note-worthy.
Roughly in the first quarter of this century ( 1923-29 ) were published
the three volumes of Cassirer's Philosophie der symbolischen Formen
among which the first volume is about Die Sprache . He discusses in
detail language as a system of signs and analyses the relations between
things and concepts on the one hand and linguistic expressions on the
other. Among present day linguists, Harris ( 1954 : 38 ) has expressed
the view that meaning is not a unique property of language, Guiraud
( 1955 : first chapter, pp. 84-99 ) has distinguished between signs and
šymbols, and Weinreich ( to be published ) has discussed semantics and
semiotics'. Thus in the West the science of meaning is closely associated
with the science of signs and attempts have been made for the
development of both.
The Indian tradition greatly differs from the western tradition in
this respect. There is reason to believe that non-linguistic ( or, only
apparently non-linguistic ) systems of signs like gesture languages,
secret code languages, were developed and were current in India frpm

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 23

considerably old times ; 1 it is well-known

grammar that creation of artificial langu
terms, the krtrima samjftäs,2 was not a
even find discussions about the meani
laukika sañijñás* about the Mïmâmsâ the
a word and its meaning is svãbhãtika
theory that such a relation is sãnketika '
distinction between sign and symbol h
Still, the general science of signs is not
India. Nor do I find any piece of evidence
ceived as a frame-work of the science of m
It is likely that the Indian thinkers
language is the basic system of signs -th
systems of signs have as their basis som
In other words, it could have been their
non-linguistic systems of signs are const
language, that their nature is determined
that conceives of them and that they ar
language whether consciously or unconsc
e. e

As Ullmann (1964 : 9 ) observes, stylistics has had a profound

influence on semantic studies in the West. In the Indian tradition we
do not find any distinctive body of literature that could resemble modern
ptylistics. There are however quite a number of ideas and observations
scattered through the system of Sanskrit poetics that modern stylistics
could profitably use. For that aspect of stylistics which is concerned
with the expressive values of language, the discussion of alankãrat
' figures of speech ' in the Sanskrit tradition would prove to be %
treasure of remarkable insights ; for that other aspect of stylistics which

1 According to Sukumar Sen ( 1968 : 681 ), Mfiladevïya , a kind of cryptic or

concealed language is quoted in the Jaya-matigala, a commentary on the Kama -
miras. See also Kautilya 1. 12. 11, 13 ; 1. 16. 25 ; Bhãsa Pratijftã-yaugandharãyana
act 3 ; Bharati ( 1965 : 164-184 ). One comes across a number of artificial technical
terms in Sanskrit works on grammar, mathematics, astronomy and astrology.
The Tantra and Yoga works use many common words as symbols having specifio
significance in the framework of the system.
2 Standard illustrations of the krtrima samjftãs are ti, ghu , bha etc.
3 Trikãndi 2. 365-371. See also the metarule ' krtrimãkrtrimayoh krtrimt
kãrya-sampratyayah ' in the Mahãbhãsya and the Paribhãsã works.
* Ruegg ( 1959 : 12, 72-73 ), Kunjunni Raja ( 1963 : 19-23 ) : vrtti 1. 23, p. 59;
1. 24-26, p. 71.

5 ' akçi-nikocãdinãm api éabdenaivãnumãpakatvafh , sanketitatvãt, ' - Helãrãja,

3, 14. 197, p. 96. See also vrtti 1. 24-26, p. 72 ; 1. 141, p. 230 ; 1. 147, p. 235,

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
24 Annals of the BhandarJcar Oriental Research Institute

is concerned with the emotive values of language, the Sanskrit dis-

cussions about the gunas * qualities of the poetic sentiment ', about the
relation between the sounds a literary composition uses and the mood it
tries to create, about ancitya ' literary propriety about the different
ways in which the nature of literary suggestion is affected, and about
the vyabhicãri-sancãri bhãvas ' the fleeting moods that a poet describes
to make manifest the culminating mood ' may prove to be significant.
The Sanskrit literature thus contains some ingredients of a general
theory of stylistics. It does not however contain any studies of the
styles of individuals or of styles used in different literary forms in
different social contexts ( e. g. styles in folk literature ) as the western
literature contains. Thus in a sense the Indian tradition has a stylistics
of its own and in a sense it does not have it. Under either alternative
one does not meet a situation in which semantics is aided or influenced
by stylistics.
m

One cause of the Indian tradition's being different in this respect

from the western tradition is of course the absence of stylistics as a disti •
nctive branch of knowledge in India ; had it been a distinctive branch it
would have most probably iufluenced Indian semantics, for, both these
fields of intellectual activity are too close to each other to avoid mutual
influence. One could also argue that the Indian theorizing about lite-
rary style did in fact influence the Indian theorizing about meaning,
only we do not have any way open to us for examining this influence
because the theorizing about style did not develop into a distinctive
system. The question then, which would take us to a deeper analy-
sis of circumstances, is, ' Why did not theorizing about style develop
into a distinctive branch of knowledge in India ? ' As all histo-
rians of thought know, it is very difficult to answer such questions in
any definite or exact way. My own guess would be as follows. In the
western tradition where poetics was mostly speculative and individuali-
stic in its approach, not especially keen to use the basis of linguistics
until very recent times, stylistics which uses the relatively objective
basis of linguistic expression ina rigorously or semi-rigorous ly stati-
stical way, was, so to say, a historically necessary intermediary
science. Indian poetics, especially after Snandavardhana ( ninth century
A. D. ), was, on the other hand, an exquisite edifice built on a solid
ground of Indian linguistic thought with room left for changes only
through logic and not through speculation or individual preferences.
Therefore there were 110 forces in India which could lead to the emer-
gence of an intermediary branch of study approximating western styli-

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 25

sties. Another possible cause is the absenc

does not seem to have occurred to the Ind
a single literary work or an individual au
could be studied by preparing a statistica
tendencies.

S. 6

No attempt for the statistical measurement of meaning, like the

one which we find in the writings of Osgood and others (1957 ), was
ever made in the Indian tradition. Absence of statistics as a science,
lack of electronic machinery etc. are of course the obvious causes of not
having made such an attempt. It is an interesting question whether
the Indians would have engaged themselves in a similar experiment had
the statistical and computing techniques been available to them. I
think that as psychologists or as compilers of thesauruses they would
have been interested in experiments like that of Osgood's, for, these
experiments do bring out a kind of average of a community's emotive
connotations with various words ; but as theoreticians of meaning they
would not have made much of these experiments. They seem to be of
the opinion that a roughly available consensus of the speakers of a
language is sufficient for the purposes of analysis and theoretical descri-
ption of meaning.1
2. 7

Most of the early studies of meaning in the West were studies in

historical semantics. Thinkers interested in language and meaning
classified and characterized various changes of meaning and tried to ex-
plain their causes. Very few were interested in answering the question
what meaning is ( Malmberg 1964 : 125 ). Asa result we have a very
rich tradition of historical semantics in the West.

The Indian semanticists have, however, paid very little attention

to the problem of change of meaning. They have studied it from a
synchronic point of view ; that is, they have probed the phenomenon of
change in meaning with changing contexts and this they have done with
remarkable thoroughness, but the studies of change in meaning from a
dichronistic point of view are almost entirely lacking in the Indian
tradition. The Indian observations in this respect do not go beyond
recording the phenomenon of nirüdha-laksanä ' stabilization of an
originally secondary meaning ' ( Kunjunni Raja ( 1957 : 127-130, 1963 : 10
38-47, 59-69).

1 4 kiñeit sãmãnyam ãéritya sthite tu pratipãdanam ' Trihãndi 3. 10. 8cd.

* sãdrèya-leéãnugama-mãtrena tu éabdãnuêãsane yathã- Icathañcid artho nirdiéyate...9-
Helãrãja, 3. 14. 202, p. 98. See also Helãrãja, 3. 10. 8, p. 101 ; 3f 14. 192. p. 95t

4 [ Annals, B, O. R. I. ]

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 Annals of the BhandarJcar Oriental Research Institute

This fact is rather surprising. From very old times the Indians
were aware of the change that had taken place in the Sanskrit language.
Efforts to determine the meanings and etymologies of Vedic words had
begun even before Yãska. The prãtiéãkhyas had noted the changes in
pronunciation with great zeal. The grammarians had brought to atten-
tion the changes in forms. The writers of Prakrit grammars had
essentially used the technique of postulating a common form when they
treated Sanskrit forms as prakrti ' the original ' and Prãkrta forms as
vikrti 1 the derivative ' of Sanskrit forms. The phenomenon of nirüdha-
laksanã had been noticed. Homonyms and homophones had attracted
the attention of all thinkers interested in language (Kunjunni Raja
1963 : 34-48 ). Still, nothing that would resemble the western histori-
cal semantics developed in India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, Leo. 1936. " What is the theory of meaning about ?"
The Monist , 46. 228-256.
Alston, William P. 1964. Philosophy of language . Prentic
Foundations of Philosophy Series. Englewood Cliffs,
Jersy.
Arjunwadkar, Krishna Shrinivas and Arvind Mangrulkar. ( eds. and
transi. ) 1962. Mammata-bhatta-vir acita Kãvya-prakãia.
Poona. ( Marathï ).
Bar-Hillel, Y. 1954. " Logical syntax and semantics Language , 30.
230-237.

Bharati, Agehananda. 1965. The Tantric tradition. London.

Bhartrhari. Vâkyapadïya or Trikândï.
( a ) kãnda I. ( ed. ) Subramania Iyer. K. A. Deccan College
Monograph Series no. 32. Poona 1966.
( b ) kãnda II. kãrikã. ( eds. ) Abhyankar K. V. and Y. P.
Limaye. University of Poona, Sankrit and Prakrit Series
no. 2. Poona 1965.
vrtti . ( ed. ) Charudeva Shastri. Ramlal Kapoor Trust
Society, Lahore, Around 1941.
( c) kãnda III. samuddeèas 1-7. (ed. ) Subramania Iyer. K.
Deccan College Monograph Series no. 21. Poona 1963.
samuddeias 8-13. (ed. ) Sãmbaáiva Castri, K. Trivan
drum Sanskrit Series no. CXVI. Tri vandrům 1935.
samuddeša 14. (ed. ) Ravi Varmã, L. A. University of
Travancore Sanskrit Series no, CXLVIII. Trivandrum
1942t

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 2 7

Bhäsa. Bhãsa-nãtaJca-cakram. ( ed. ) Devadhar, C. R

Series no. 54. Poona 1937.

Bhattacharya, Bishnupada. 1962. A study in language and meaning

Calcutta.

Biardeau, M. 1964. Theorie de la connaissance et philosophie de la

parole dans le brahmanisme classique. Paris.
Bloch, Bernard. 1948. "A set of postulates for phonemic analysis".
Language. 24. 3-46.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York.

35. 101-106.

Chakravarti, P. C. 1930. The philosophy of Sanskrit grammar. Univer

sity of Calcutta, Calcutta.
..

sity of Calcutta, Calcutta.

Frege, Gottlob. Translations from the

(eds. ) Peter Geach and Max Black.
Fries, Charles C. 1954. "Meaning and L
30. 57-68.

and American linguistics . 193

mann, Alf Sommerfelt and Jo
Mass.

Garvin, Paul L. 1958. " A descriptive technique for the treatment of

meaning Language , 34. 1-32.
Gaurinath Sastri. 1959. The philosophy of word and meaning . Calcutta
Sanskrit College Research Series no. 5. Calcutta.
Guiraud, Pierre. 1955. La sémantique. Paris.
Harris, Zellig S. 1952. "Discourse analysis". Language , 28. 1-30.

age. (eds. ) Jerry A. Fodor and

Cliffs, New Jersy. 1965. Reprint.
Heläräja. See Bhartrhari ( c ).
Joos, Martin. 1958. " Semology : a
Studies in linguistics , 13. 53-70.
Katz, Jerrold J. 1964. " Mentalism
124-137.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
28 Annals of the ßhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

K^utilya. Artha-éãstra. (ed.) Kangle, R. P. University of Bomba#

Studies in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali, no. 1. Bombay 1960.
Kronasser, Heinz. Handbuch der Semasiologie .
Ku nj unni Baja, K. 1957. " Diachronistic linguistics in ancient India.1'
Journal of the Madras University , pp. 127-130.

Series no. 91. Madras.

Malmberg, Bertil. 1964. New trends in linguistics : an orientation .

Translated from the Swedish original by Edward Carney.
Stockholm Lund.

McCawley, James D. 1967. "How to find semantic universais in the

event that there are any." Read in mimeographed form.
Morris, Charles W. 1938. " Foundations of the theory of signs. "ú'
International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science, (eds. ) Otto
Neurath, Rudolf Carnap and Charles Morris. Vol. I, pp. 76-137.
Chicago.

Ogden, C. K. and I. A. Richards. 1923

The meaning of meaning. New
Osgood, Charles E., Q. J. Suci and
printing 1961. The measurement
Pandeya, R. C. 1963. The problem
Delhi.

Patañjali. Vyãkarana-mahãbhãsya. ( ed. ) Kielhorn, F. Third edn.

Vol. I. Poona 1962.

Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers Yol. II. (eds. ) Charles Hart-
shorne and Paul Weiss. Harvard University Press. Cambridge,
Mass. 1960.

Quine, Willard van Orman. 1953. From a logical point of view. Harvard
University Press. Cambridge, Mass.

Mass.

Read, Allen Walker. 1948. " An accou

4. 76-97.

' meaning 6th RTMf pp. 123-13

Ruegg, David Seyfort. 1959. Contr
sophie linguistique indienne . Par

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ancient Indian Semantics 29

Russell, Bertrand. 1940. An inquiry into me

Šabara. Mimäfosä-sütra-bhäsya. Anandãáram
Poona 1929.

Saussure, F. de. 1916. Cours de Linguistique Générale. Lausanne.

Spang-Hanssen, Henning. 1962. " Glossematics ". Trends in Euro -
pean and American linguistics : 1930-1960. (eds. ) Christine
Mohrmann, Alf Sommerfelt and Joshua Whatmough.
Staal, J. F. 19tj0. "Review of Ruegg (1959)." Philosophy East and
West. 10. 53-57.

ental Society , 86. 304-311.

Sukumar Sen. 1968. " On Müradeva M
d'Indianisme a la mémoire de Lou
Trikândï. See Bhartrhari.

Ullmann, Stephen. 1962-1964. Semantics. New York.

Greenberg, J. H. The M. I. T. Press

C. F. 1949. " Linguistics without m
words." Word , 5. 36-42.

vrtti. See Bhartrhari ( a ) and ( b

Weinreich. Uriel. 1966. " On the sem
Universais of language (ed. ) Green
Press. Cambridge. Mass.

Encyclopaedia of the Soc

shed by Crowell-Collier.

This content downloaded from

128.171.57.189 on Sun, 27 Feb 2022 01:43:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms