Article

Introduction to the Course of Theoretical Linguistics

Author: Vladimir

Comparative study of the Concept of the Word in
the Eastern and Western Thought. By Vladimir.

This study is an attempt to overview certain important aspects of linguistics and treatment of semantics in different linguistic traditions, especially Indian. It has a particular aim to present a possible solution for a new direction of research which may offer a new approach to semantics and to the metaphysical and psychological understanding of ourselves and the world in a more integral manner.
In this study we use different approaches: historical, psychological, philosophical and linguistic. It is important to understand the shift in the metaphysical paradigm, as well as linguistic and psychological views on men and the world.

In the first part we examine the Vedic paradigm of knowledge and linguistics with many important quotes and examples from the original texts. From the Vedic (archaic and magical) structure we move to the Vedantic intuitive approach with mythical structure and then to the Tantric approaches to knowledge and language. In between we examine major theories of language as presented by Yaska in his Nirukta (600 BC), Patanjali in his Mahabhashya (200 BC), Bhartrihari (400 AD) and the schools of Sphota which followed after.
In the second part we make an overview of the Western Thought starting from Hebrews and Greeks: Moses, Socrates, Aristotle, and ending with Chomsky and Katz in the fields of generative grammar.

In the third part there is a comparative overview of the levels of the Word as it is presented in Tantra with the Western approaches to language and semantics, which clearly shows on what level Western studies took place from the point of view of Tantra, and what definition of semantics they could get from those levels.
In the conclusion we present a new approach to the semantics on the basis of the transparent etymological system of Sanskrit language, which in itself can lead us to a new Science of language and especially semantics.
This study is the first draft and is to be seen as the beginning of a new approach to the Semantics and Linguistics, based on a more serious and deeper look into the nature of our Language.

General Introduction

A shift of paradigm from the Vedic to the Post-Vedic Epistemologies.
A shift of epistemological paradigm took place several times in the history of mankind. In the Vedic times, for instance, the Word as a faculty of Consciousness was perceived and referred to as creative and formative of thought, and only later as indicative of and completely dependent on it. This particular shift led eventually to the emergence of the theory of Sphota and Tantric theories of the Word and then eventually to the modern understanding of language. Greeks, for instance, did not have such a problem, for their civilization was mainly formed and started to be conscious of itself only after the time of great Mysteries; they were already grounded in a new perception of language, though some archaic statements, the memories of the past Mysteries, can still be found scattered here and there in the literature but nevertheless do not determine the overall understanding and approach to language.
In India the original perception of the Word was preserved by the Vedic tradition and developed fully, though already within a new mindset, by a number of schools of grammar in the post Vedic period, the most famous of which were Nirukta of Yaska, Ashtadhyayi of Panini, Mahabhashya of Patanjali, Vakyapadiya of Bhartrihari, Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta and others.
Tantras in this regard are to be mentioned separately here as a unique synthesis, for they have preserved and developed the ancient perception of the Word in a new fashion, using already rational mind, which by its nature radically differs from that of the Vedas. Thus we find in Tantra this interesting blend of deep prehistoric views on the Word (of archaic, magic and mythical structures) combined with modern rational way of symmetric classification, making up a rational system within or from the infra-rational or rather supra-rational framework. So, it was an attempt to rationally describe something, which had altogether another epistemology of the ‘Vedic’ mind, where the Word was perceived as independent from the Mind.
Besides all this, Sanskrit was the only language which has preserved its own original and complete system of etymons, simple sound-ideas, and did not require any other language to explain its own derivations, for all the evidence was contained in its own basic system of roots, and referred to it alone. The Sanskrit vocabulary is based on the organic interrelation of meaning and sound, being regular throughout the system; therefore the meaning of the word was never mis-taken for the form of object it designated. The meaning of the word was inherent within the system of roots, sound-ideas, and could designate any object in a particular context, for it was revealing and referring to its own meaning and only reflecting it in the object, where the object was seen as a result molded by its meaning.
Sri Aurobindo explains the nature of Vedic perception of Language:
“The Vedic Sanskrit ... abounds in a variety of forms and inflexions; it is fluid and vague, yet richly subtle in its use of cases and tenses. And on its psychological side it has not yet crystallized, is not entirely hardened into the rigid forms of intellectual precision. The word for the Vedic Rishi is still a living thing, a thing of power, creative, formative. It is not yet a conventional symbol for an idea, but itself the parent and former of ideas. It carries within it the memory of its roots, is still conscient of its own history.”

The Metaphysical shift of paradigm
(From the Vedic and Vedantic to the Sankhyaic epistemology).
The Vedantic approach to consciousness was a transition from the Vedic to the later metaphysical approaches of Sankhyā and Yoga.
Let us take a brief look into the Vedantic approach to Consciousness, which may help us to define the difference between the modern (Sankhyaic) and ancient (Vedic) episteme.
Brahman, according to the Taittiriya Upanishad 3.1.2, is described as annam pranam chakshush shrotram mano vacamiti, “matter, breath, sight, hearing, mind, speech”.
In Vedanta they also correspond to higher cognitive faculties of Consciousness, which were perceived by the Rishis as universal being reflected in the individual frame.
SEEING and HEARING, (Chakshuh-Shrotram), are mentioned constantly as a dvandva, pair, in the Vedic texts.
• SEEING, DRISHTI, CAKSHUS, was seen by the Vedic Rishis as a faculty of consciousness which introduces a direct contact with what is being perceived. It can be translated in terms of a "direct evidence of the truth", (there is a Russian proverb: “better to see once, than to hear a hundred times”, which explains it quite well). Drishti in the Vedas is considered to be the ultimate faculty of Consciousness, as a revelation of the Truth. It is of direct and self-evident nature.
• HEARING, SHRUTI, SHROTRAM, on the other hand, was seen as ‘indirect evidence’ (like for instance an inspiration). Without this faculty we may not know the relation of the object we see with other objects we don’t see. It’s like we see a face, which tries to tell us something, but we can’t hear it. We don’t understand what it wants from us, because the intention is not always visible. So much so everything which is not yet manifest, realised, understood, is falling into this domain of Hearing, or “indirect evidence of the Truth”. It is of the nature of all-pervading Space, Spirit, connecting all into One Reality.
MANAS and VAK, was another constant dvandva in Vedanta.
• MANAS, Mind, was perceived by the Vedic seers as the faculty of consciousness equal to Seeing and Hearing and not as the dominant principle, as it was understood later and especially in Sankhyā and Yoga. It was also considered to be equal to the Word-faculty, which later was completely subordinated and fully depending on it. In the Vedic paradigm MANAS was an active counterpart of the perceptive faculty of Seeing, rather than the sixth sense of the Sankhyā.
• VAK, Speech, was considered to be an independent faculty of Consciousness, having its own power and character. It was seen as an expression or an active presentation of the All-pervading Spirit: Hearing. Brahman (lit. growing, expanding one) was referred to as Mantra in Rig Veda, and only later as a Spirit.
Thus, these four: chakṣus, šrotram, manas and vāk, according to Upanishads, constituted brahma chatuṣpād, “Spirit on four legs” through which Brahman was manifested in the world. PRANA very often symbolised the embodiment of Brahman itself, especially in the older Upanishads. It was also understood as the offspring of MANAS, as its father and VAK, as its mother (BrhUp). In this way the process of manifestation of the Spirit in matter was conceived, which made matter animated, annam (lit. "eatable"). Thus we have one more pair: PRANA-APANA, Breathing in and Breathing out, or PRANA- ANNA, Life and Matter (Prashna and Taittiriya Upanishads).
These three pairs are constantly mentioned in the Upanishads:
1) MANAS-VAC, (cp: Agni-Soma in Rig Veda);
2) CHAKSHUS-SHROTRAM, (cp: Nama-Rupa in Brahmanas)
3) PRANA-APANA, or PRANA-ANNAM (cp: Prashnopanishad)

Seeing and Hearing (Cakshus-Shrotram) are perceptive faculties, marked with (-), whereas Thinking and Speaking (Manas-Vak) are their active counterparts, marked with (+). These four are realised in the Manifestation of Life and Matter (Prana-Anna). Thinking and Seeing are related to Rupam, Form, as the expression of the aspect of Power, whereas Word and Hearing to Nama, Name, as the expression of the aspect of Knowledge. These two: Knowledge and Power are the constituents of the Supreme Consciousness known as Cit-Tapas, which is the source and origin of Nama and Rupa, constituting the phenomenon of consciousness in manifestation. It is by the Nama and Rupa that Brahman could enter its creation, according to the old Vedantic texts.
This paradigm radically differs from the one which started after with Sankhyā, classifying all the faculties of consciousness, treating them as the doors to the perception of the mind, manas, ego-sense, ahaṃkāra, and higher intellect, buddhi. It is as if the universal and transcendental faculties of consciousness sight, hearing and word were submitted to the mind as their leader, surrendered to the mental perception. So from the time of Sankhyā the rational classification (which was known already in the Gita) started a new period of mental approach in every field of knowledge, šāstras.

The Linguistic shift of paradigm
The vast experiential approach to the studies of consciousness was the characteristic of the Vedic approach to knowledge. The Veda maintained that the Word was the creative power of the universe with the gods as its agents. The Word was perceived as an expression of the Supreme Consciousness in manifestation, creating all the creatures and their tongues as their self-expressions. Such was the beginning of our knowing. Rational mind cannot easily understand this view on the Word without penetrating deeper and deconstructing its own habitual structures of perception, allowing other structures to formulate their perceptions within the consciousness. Such ability requires a development of ‘integral awareness’.
In the Veda the Word was seen as a parent of Idea, rather than its expression. The sound value and the manner of expression within the consciousness of man, that is his emotional and substantive content of the voice and sound, were perceived as creative of and conducive to thought and feeling. The word was still connected with its own origin of sound. The meaning and its expression were still close to each other, or we can say that the meaning was inherent within or even was that very expression. The separation of artha from vāk was not yet fully realized, and the structure, which separates them, was not fully mentalised, there was a veil between the two but it was still transparent. The mind did not dominate it yet with is own structural meaning, fixing their division. It was still fluid, capable to maintain the variety of expressions and shades of its own meaning. Every root, or sound-meaning, had many other kindred etymons around it, supporting it in their flexible system capable to create kindred meanings, and, being applied in different context, could create different contextual meanings. In other words, the signifier was free from the signified, and could be applied to express or designate any object in its qualitative relations as an adjective. The word was not yet fixed or crystallized into the mental formation to designate a particular object or concept, the word as we know it now. The same word could be applied to any object or concept when it was appropriate to create that particular meaning-perception, that particular characteristic. The word was still alive, referring to is own system of meaning. The image, the lexeme, was not yet fixed by the usage of the mentalised structure of language. The word was still carrying in itself its own significance from its own source of sound-meaning.
When the need of rational expression of the mind started to dominate other and more intuitive approaches to knowledge, crystallizing them into the mental structures (ṣaḍ daršanas), explanation starting from the times of Yāska and Pānini, and we can clearly see this tendency fully realized in the Patanjali’s approach, where he suggests that the meaning of the word has to learned in the market place and not from the learned linguist, then the emergence of a structural approach to the language is taking over and the theory of Sphota is being formulated. The uniqueness of this theory is that it is based on the Vedic perception of the Word as creative in its major character but utilizes the perception of the rational mind to structure it within the language. When these two approaches are maintained within one view they create that which we know as the theory of Sphota. To be able to conceive the two it was possible only on the basis of Sanskrit language, no other language would allow such a synthesis, for only Sanskrit has a transparent and complete etymological system and clear and subtle grammatical structure.
To make this point clear let us compare the lexical meaning of the word in Sanskrit and other languages. When we say in English ‘a pen’, the word itself does not say what it is or what it does; one should learn about it separately, remembering and applying a particular meaning of ‘writing’ to it. Actually in such a language any word can designate any other meaning, as a symbol, or a token. So here the word is only indicative of the meaning, the signifier is only to point out the signified, chosen in a seemingly arbitrary way by the mind, or, as the modern linguistics would say, by the custom of language. When we say word ‘pen’ in Sanskrit, it is ‘lekhani’, which is derived from the root ‘likh’/rikh meaning ‘to scratch’, ‘to scrap’, ‘to scribe’. So, the word ‘lekhani’ is only a derivation, meaning ‘scratching [thing]’ and therefore among other meanings ‘scribing [thing]’. It may also mean any other tool of action which involves ‘scratching’ and not only ‘writing’.
If we take a look into the Sanskrit Dictionary, we will find that the words change their meanings gradually from word to word, page after page. It is as if meaning is floating with the sound. Similar picture we can find in the Latin and Greek Dictionaries, but already not so systematic and with many gaps in-between. When we look into English Dictionary we find that this regularity is not there anymore. The meaning is changing without any correspondence to the phonetic content of the word.
The difference between the contextual and proper meaning of the word is to be mentioned here, for a proper meaning of the word exceeds all the meanings which are known to us by usage of the word, in a context of our language. For instance, if we take word ‘yoga’ in the Monnier Williams Dictionary we will find about 150 meanings.
Let us have a look into some of them:
Yoga is
- the act of yoking , joining , attaching , harnessing , putting to (of horses); a yoke, team, vehicle, conveyance;
- employment, use, application, performance;
- a means, expedient, device, way, manner, method;
- a trick, stratagem, fraud, deceit;
- occasion, opportunity;
- any junction, union, combination, contact with; mixing of various materials, mixture;
- partaking of, possessing, connection, relation;
- putting together, arrangement, disposition, regular succession fitting together, fitness, propriety, suitability;
- exertion, endeavour, zeal, diligence, industry, care, attention;
- (in yoga system) application or concentration of the thoughts, abstract contemplation, meditation, (esp.) self-concentration, abstract meditation and mental abstraction;
- (in astr.) a constellation, asterism, the leading or principal star of a lunar asterism;
- (in arithm.) addition , sum , total;
- (in gram.) the connection of words together, syntactical dependence of a word, construction, a combined or concentrated grammatical rule or aphorism; the connection of a word with its root, original or etymological meaning.
- (in med.) a remedy, cure (SušrS);
- (in military) equipping or arraying (of an army) MBh.
- fixing (of an arrow on the bow-string) ib.
We can clearly see that all these meanings are only applications of some original meaning of the word ‘yoga’ in a particular context, creating thus a contextual meaning, which is recorded in the dictionary. What is then the original meaning of the word ‘yoga’? Does it have its own original meaning or it is only by the usage of language that it comes to signify so many different actions? And even more, is it exclusive or open list meanings?
If we examine how the word ‘yoga’ is used in different milieus of language, such as arithmetic, linguistic, philosophical, psychological, medical, astrological etc., we will find that the central meaning of the word did not actually change, it was as if applied within that particular language as a kind of device, creating a new meaning and at the same time sustaining its own ‘core meaning’.
To recognize the core meaning of the word ‘yoga’ we have to go to its root; it is derived from the root ‘yuj’, meaning ‘to yoke’, ‘to unite’, ‘to use’, among many other possible significances. But somehow it does not answer our quest, so we have to go deeper into the embryology of the roots. To understand it in its universal significance we have to find its parent-root from which it was derived, the root which is even simpler than monosyllabic yuj, and that is root ‘yu’, of which ‘yu-j’ is only an extension. The root ‘yu’ has two major meanings: ‘to unite’ and ‘to divide’ in different verbal classes. Now we are puzzled. Is it possible that we have to look even deeper, to perceive the simplest components of the root in order to know how it may have these two opposite meanings?
The simple root ‘yu’ consists of two simple vowels, creative of a syllable: ‘i’ and ‘u’. These are the simplest components and in Sanskrit language. The root ‘i’ means to go, and the root ‘u’ (av) means ‘to mediate’, ‘to pervade’, ‘to grow’, ‘to occupy’, etc. The first root has the significance of ‘onepointedness’ in its motion or concentration, the latter the significance of ‘duality’.
So if draw a picture of the root ‘yu’ it would resemble the picture of two in one.
On one end there is one-pointed-ness and on the other the duality. If we use the device looking from duality point of view towards the oneness we get the meaning of uniting two in one, and in the opposite direction dividing one into two.
Now, if it is true that the most elemental sound-roots such as ‘i’ and ‘u’, have the significance of singularity and duality, it must be maintained in all other roots and simple words and their applications. It requires a study. (The brief of this study is in the section of Etymology, section 3).
This particular feature of Sanskrit we can call ‘etymological transparency’. It is because of this particular feature that Sanskrit language could sustain itself over millennia.
Now if we move towards the dissemination of this core meaning in the derivations, expanding it into the family of roots and words we will find the group roots yu-j, yu-nth, yu-dh, yu-p. The Monier Williams Dictionary gives us their significances:
yuj, to yoke or join or fasten or harness (horses or a chariot) RV, etc.;
yunth, to give or suffer pain Dhātup. iii , 7.
yudh , 4. A1. to fight, wage war , oppose or (rarely) overcome in battle to fight with (instr.) or for (loc.) or against (acc.) RV. &c. &c. to oppose or overcome in war (acc.) MBh
yup cl. 4. P. to debar, obstruct, disturb, trouble, confuse, efface, remove, destroy RV. AV., etc.;
In all these roots, seen as derivations or extensions of the root ‘yu’, we can clearly identify the significance of ‘union’ and ‘separation’ with the variety of changes, which occur due to the significance of the extension element influencing the change of meaning.
There is even a deeper look into the oneness of sound and meaning. According to the Tantra all the sounds are seen as modulations of the one original sound ‘a’. These modulations are becoming significant through a particular effort in articulation. This significance is very subtle but it is regular. It requires a deeper look to be able to perceive it, but it is nevertheless crucial for a transparency and truthfulness of the whole etymological system of Sanskrit. It is this sensitiveness to sound and its meaning in articulation that makes Sanskrit a unique language, sustaining over millennia.
Though the shift of paradigm took place in the mind from the suprarational and infrarational to the rational, the word, the language remained the same, connecting all the developmental stages into one perception. It is this particular feature that makes Indian Civilisation unique.
Since Sanskrit preserved its system of etymons it can therefore bring the deepest perceptions from the past epistemologies into the modern one. This unique feature of Sanskrit makes all the difference in the building up integral consciousness in the individual. If it could become a national language it could liberate the whole nation.

Attachments