Vol. 4 Issue 52 – Research Paper: 'Ka:rmik Linguistic Concept: An Overview' by Dr. Pratap Kumar Dash

This paper is submitted by Dr. Pratap Kumar Dash, Ph.D Scholar, Assistant Professor of English, Faculty of Education, Brack Sabha University, Libya

Abstract

Introduction

Language is one of the greatest and the most valuable gifts of the Creator for human being. It is an inherent human phenomenon which is as complex as human relationship in a society. It is as per the observation of scientists connected to brain functions and the neurolinguists find that in brain, language is a left-hemisphere function. It is a product of evolutionary process. It is a biological time-table that is found in the development of a child’s linguistic ability. Language acquisition and learning fails to emerge unless the child is exposed to a language. Language acquisition is an emergent behavior. In The Gita, it is said that: askhar bramha paraman sva bhabodhyotu which means letter or word is a gift of the supreme soul .The knowledge of having the capacity of creation and use of language is supposed to be a prarabdha (pre-attributed). The Rig Veda says that language expression is as beautiful as flowering and fruition in plants and trees. Sidha sabdartha sambandhe, says Katyayan, the classical Sanskrit grammarian, which means the relationship between word and its meaning is/are always pure and conformed. So, in the context of the gravity of importance of the knowledge of language, researches have been carried out from time to time .The aim of such researches is to find out the truth associated with the why and how of its presence, acquisition, learning, uses and all other dynamic and utilitarian aspects associated with it.

In the mean time, like the theories of linguistics of Saussure or Chomsky or Halliday, Ka:rmik Linguistic Concept(KLC) is a recent development in language research done by Sri Chilikuri Bhuvaneswar. It is a holistic, comprehensive and awakening approach on the basis of the classical texts like The Gita and Shree Aadi Shankaracharya’s Advaita Siddhanta.  By now, the world science of language and literature are mostly guided by the core Western theories or by their incomplete interpretation of the Oriental theories. But none seem to be concrete and conform in devising principles and mechanisms of language formation, acquisition, and production, function and interpretation and the other linguistic aspects .The most important thing is that their observation is mostly based on the broad forms of the physical and material world, leaving aside the primary spiritual, epistemological and subtle forms very much associated with language.

Background to KLC

Now, before discussing the thrust of KLC, we would like to focus briefly on the three basic things of psychological and socio-academic aspects of language like language acquisition, science of language and meaning of language as defined by the popular theorists of these days. Normally, in the theories of “language acquisition and learning”, behaviorists like B.F.Skinner (1904-1990) say that children imitate adults in learning language. Their correct utterances are reinforced when they get what they want or are praised. He speaks about habit forming by desirable and undesirable behavioral patterns. Then, Noam Chomsky (1928- ) says that the innateness or presence of universal core grammar or human language faculty or core instinct helps in language learning. The ability of language learning is biologically determined and language acquisition is done through a supposed language acquisition device.  Piaget (1896-1980) says that language is an aspect of overall intellectual development. Bruner is of the opinion that language acquisition takes place when interaction between children and their care givers takes place regularly. Then, M.A.K Halliday (1925- ) opines that language acquisition is a societal phenomenon which is socially derived from universality of the uses related to social function and is developed by child’s communicative needs and abilities in the society. In Relational Frame Theory, Hayes, Bernes et.al say that children acquire language interacting with environment .The functional contextualism says that thoughts, feelings ,behaviors by focusing on manipulable variables in their context helps  learning language too.

The next vital aspect is the study of the “science of language”, in which we have varieties of schools with their respective opinions both synchronically and diachronically. The naturalists like Plato (428-348 BC) and his school says that there was by nature a correct name for everything. A number of words have the quality onomatopoeia and the others have a natural connection with their meaning by reference to one or more of their constituent sounds. They say that every word contain a sound which is naturally appropriate to its meaning. Then conventionalists refute that and assert that the names of things were due purely to convention and have no deep appropriateness. Aristotle(384-322 BC) and stoic philosophical schools speak that language is entirely systematic and regular in grammatical structures, and word forms, and the parallels between grammatical forms, word structures and vice versa. Anomalists say that the relationship between the form of a word and its meaning is frequently anomalous. Ferdinand De Saussure (1857-1913) says that linking a name and a thing is very simple operation—an assumption that is anything but true. He says language is a system of sign in which the only essential thing is the union of meanings and sound images and in which both parts of the sign are psychological. This sign is a two-sided psychological entity like concept or signified and sound image or signifier. The linguistic sign to Saussure is the basic unit of communication, a unit with the language (i.e. the mental construct and concrete entity) of the community. Each linguistic sign is a ‘value’ determined by its relationship within the total vocabulary in a language. The signs are multiple in number and their system is quite complex and can be grasped only through reflection. Sapir’s sound-meaning relationship is one of the aspects of linguistics too.

Coming over to the ” philosophy of meaning” of language, we find that Linguists like Leech(1936-) gives the latest  idea about conceptual(semantic) and associative (connotative) meanings. The “Idea Theories” of meaning outlined by Locke (1632-1704) and his school say that meanings are mental contents provoked by signs, otherwise called semantic internalism. In truth-conditioning theories, meaning is understood in the context of something true or false .The “Use theorists” make out meaning as per the use of language. “Reference theories” meaning is designed by semantic externalism i.e. meaning on the basis of society and environment. Some others like the “verificationists” believe in deriving meaning through verification only.

Focus on the Topic

It is found that in the three major aspects of language acquisition, science of language and meaning of language, theories, experiments and observations have been done widely. But, none of them have a complete and concrete opinion about the fundamental principles of creation, formation, meaning, and use of language. In the meantime, all the theories and concepts are based on broad spectrum of physical, temporal, individual, societal, contextual and external observations leaving aside the most important aspect called Disposition. Cognitivists, behaviorists, structuralists, systemic function theorists mostly speak of the broadly visible aspects of language confined to their experiment and observation. But, they lack the idea of the most powerful aspect of the origin of the process of language and its use. Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory says that disposition and its connected factors are responsible for all the matters of language. According to this, disposition is an outcome of the umbrella term called Karma as outlined in The Gita and Advaita Siddhanta. Karma is the root and it has various interpretations like satkarma, asatkarma, vikarma, duskarma, akarma, punyakarma etc.In grammar,karma refers to the predicative phrase denoting the performance of the head word in a sentence. In Vedic ritual system, karma refers to the pious performances like sra:ddha, yajna etc. Karma results in phala(result) which is experienced(bhogam). Karma refers to the prefixed fate too. Karmaphalabhogam is a system of cause-effect reality. So to say, Karma is the sole determinant factor of personality both in micro and macro form. Also, there are related words like kaarya , kriya which means work or performing a duty. Karma refers to the integrated vision of human existence for fulfillment of desires as such conducive to dispositional, socio-cultural, spiritual cognition of action and its ultimate experience that constitute personality . Personality has in fact five-fold schema constituting koshas under the three-fold shareera viz. sthula(includes annamaya kosha or body); shukhma(includes pranamaya i.e energy and manomaya i.e. the lower and computing mind) ; vijnanamaya (creative and abstraction);and karana-sharira(causal body or anandamaya kosha). Like all other knowledge ,the knowledge of language is inherent to personality which is embedded by the five gyanendriyas like sound(sky),touch(air),form(fire),juice(water) and taste .The five karmendriyas like speech, hands, feet, payuh and upastha are also there. All these are interconnected-interrelated –interdependent and manifest all the animalist as well as rationalist knowledge including the knowledge of language.

The atheological sense of disposition(personality) is understood as svabha:vam, which is an aggregate of va:sana(strong impressions of actions leading to spontaneous manifestation without any antecedent or precedent cause; their  jnana i.e .knowledge that constitutes sattvika, rajasika, tamasika  gunas or traits; and priori, posteriori and experimental knowledge) to constitute the formation, acquisition, expression ,interpretation and all other factors associated with language.This is further added with purusha to give form and a shape. In addition, Va:sana, jnana and guna are always interrelated, interconnected and interdependent with the association of cognition to change or impact svabhava which has in fact  many forms. This disposition generates, specifies and directs all sorts of activities with biases and choices with spatio-temporal and contextual set ups.

Language in this regard is the product of Karma which results in the three levels of reality. They are: Dispositional(higher level), Actional(middle level) and Experiential(lower level).Language acquisition,formation,production,transmission,communication,interpretation and reaction are also the outcome of  karmas .It is not only a formal and functional system but also a system in which form and function are interconnected, interrelated and interdependent .It is the dispositional acquisition and internalization of the linguistic system. The meaning of language is always abstract and manifest itself in concrete forms via symbolization or semiotic representation through different karmic stages .One such stage is phono-lexical –lexis—syntax—speech/writing. Language is used as a resource for the construction of (actional/dispositional/karmik) reality. The core of a shabda or dhaatu is generated, specified and directed from the inner Brahma and the result of disposition.

In many ways, KLC traces the value of language and its characteristics in the light of The Gita,  for example, it is said  in the thirteenth discourse that :  prakrityeiba cha karmanini sarbasah  yah pashyati tathatmankartaram II 29II   which means that by prakriti i.e. maya, the sakti or inherent energy  transforms itself into causes and effects  in speech ,thought or deed. It comprehensively  links further the idea of language as outlined in The Brihadaranyak Upanisad too viz. triyatmanekurut iti mano wacham pranam, tanyatmanekuruta;….II 3II ,which says that the Creator designed three things : the mind, the organ of speech, and the vital force. From among these, the organ of speech serves to determine or reveal a thing, but it cannot be revealed like things.

According to KLC, a work of art, or any text usually forms a unilateral triangle. Keeping the consciousness at the centre, it makes the text assume the top point and the writer and the reader assume both the horizontal points of the angles. The author’s ka:rmik reality is reflected in the form of disposition mixed with a particular genre of writing with traits and creative efforts and the same thing happens in case of the reader. Sometimes, the authorial disposition may not match with the reality of disposition of the reader or it may go beyond the authorial dimension (dispositional bias), then the interpretation of the text will take some other shape, meaning and form. However, the core process designs the pattern and the structure of all that remain in the advaita form, function and cognition.  Language communication is done better not through “communicative competence” but through “dispositional competence”. Human beings use social interaction as a means to fulfill its desire and purposes. For everything, its action is the effect of socio-cultural-spirituality. If social communication were an end in itself, then all social communication would be monolithic; there should not be any social variation within a group sticking to a definite social structure. However, in real life, such a possibility is negated ; new forms of language and communication come into existence within a society as and when dispositional creativity springs up in the users, and fashions, innovations .These changes are I-I-Ily networked with sociocultural-spiritual divisions and separation as societies function as dissipative structures like :

Experiential Communication—-Dispositional Communication—Actional Communication

The language learner acquires all formal, functional, emotional, and sum total of “experiential competence”, which can substitute Bachman’s (1990) “organizational competence”. Mechanical reproduction of language, fossilization, mere utilitarian use and deny the learners the resources needed to develop a creative command of the language which would enable them to express their own individual and social meanings.   Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is associated with cultural imperialism and denies individual expressivity. According to this, language is not only meant for interaction and communication or express meaning through it but also a means of constructing and coordinating experience. So, language communication is reflected through its dispositionally derived structure.

In the context of the primary units of language teaching-learning, it says that language is not grammatical and structural, but “experiential cognemes” realized through formal, functional and discourse features.  In language acquisition, knowledge, skill and disposition are I-I-I as homogenous phenomenon in Disposition (Svabhavam).In Communicative Language Teaching, language is taken as a communicative practice. But it is really the experiential practice. Learning is personalized, subjective and creative. So, experiential memory is an aspect of language learning.

Thus, the KLC networks of language communication and expression presents the logical network of language acquisition/learning and its use in the following manner:

1. Actional Reality Network works simultaneously at three levels of phonology, lexis and syntax in functional level resulting in speech acts and implicature with semantics.
2. Dispositional Reality Network takes Context in three ways, viz. immediate, wider, and global resulting in discourse in speech and writing with pragmatic constraints with an active impact of traits.

Meaning according to KLC is not only formal, functional, referential, contextual or cultural, but also, experiential and dispositional. Halliday says that language is as it is not (merely) because of what it has to do but because of what is intended to do what it has to do—as the workman, so is his work .Only, experientiality—dispositionality—activity (E-D-A) give us the answer to the WHY—aspect of language. The causality of language is the causality of Creation itself. The evolutionary process itself has the language of Creation that leads to language of material Creation; then the language of living systems and finally language of experiential action (or speech).

The function of the language of creation is to provide the basis for experience to human beings through the language of living (which inherits the language of creation in addition to it) through the language of (lingual) action (which inherits the languages of living + creation). As such, they are anushangik (each successive effect inheriting the preceding as the cause in a holorchy) in their evolution:

Language of Creation –> Language of Material Creation

Language of Living Systems and Language of Experiential Action

For example: Speech

This human language again consists of three (the experiential, the dispositional, and the actional) as five worlds [1. the experiential, the dispositional (2. the selectional, 3. the deliberational, and 4. the combinational and binding), and 5. Material or the actional (contextual actional, and individual actional)] from which it is produced and which again produces these five worlds.

The inclusion of these worlds brings about another set of correspondences beyond the context – language correspondences (field-tenor-mode/ideational-interpersonal-textual) which is [karma] – disposition-context-(lingual) action correspondence. Such a correspondence is holorchical as well as I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) and is worked out in ka:rmik linguistic theory in terms of the five realities: [dispositional, cognitive, socioculturalspiritualindividual], contextual actional and actional. So the third level of disposition has to be added to the context-language levels. This is necessary if the open-ended evolution of language has to be motivated successfully from its inception to its present state. It is here the conception of language changes from one of social actional (Halliday) to dispositional actional to ka:rmik actional or universal creational (Bhuvaneswar). Such connections can be more realistically shown in terms of ka:rmik star networks. An example is given below. The following example illustrates the operation of a star network.

Conclusion

KLC is a natural, experimental, and experiential concept. It is an outcome of a sincerely devised commonsense knowledge of the science of language, conscientious and scholarly pursuit of linguistic research of decades together. However, it needs more of analysis and experimentation with varieties of comprehensive, complicated, comparative and contrastive aspects of language and literature of all genres.  Although it refers to certain Indian scholarly and ethical classical texts, still then, it is a universal approach to different aspects of linguistics found in any language and literature of the world. Prof.Bhuvaneswar has done extensive works on all the dynamic aspects of linguistics in the light of KLC and the result is groundbreaking and satisfactory. Still it needs the contribution of many to form a KLC school altogether.   In addition to the Schools of Linguists in the ancient India and modern Europe, the KLC School will be a contributory of the knowledge of language, more reasonable, free of biases and prejudices of space and time.