Overview:

Overview: Indian thought has continuously been exerting a stimulating influence on modern linguistic studies. It has become quite customary to refer to Paanini in any introductory survey of the history of Indian linguistics. The objective of this article is to look back and evaluate the origin and development of Indian Linguistic Traditions in respect of different aspects of meaning .

THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT:

In India various aspects of the problem of meaning have been discussed by the different systems of thought. It may be useful to see what these different groups have to say about meaning.
(A) Vaiyaakaranas (The Grammarians) Yaaska: He is generally considered to be a pre-Paaninian. He is the author of Nirukta. Yaaska and his followers deal with the etymological study of word-meanings. He refers to Sabdaanukrti or onomatopoeia as a factor in the naming of some birds. He says that a few words like kaaka (crow) could be traced to the sound produced by the birds; but later grammarians deny the existence of onomatopoeia as a linguistic factor. Yaaska tries to derive all nouns from verbal roots and in his grammar we find the tendency, often mechanical, to offer different etymologies for a single word, when its meaning becomes different. He seems to have held the view that when meanings differ, the words and their derivations are also different. Yaaska forgets that the literal meaning of a word could be shifted or extended or changed according to various contexts; he offers separate etymologies for a single word when its meaning becomes different and even with a metaphorical meaning. Thus the term kesin (rays) is derived from the root kaas which is not correct phonologically or semantically. Yaaskas' theories are perhaps the germ of the double-meaning (slesa) of later classical Sanskrit literature.

Paanini (400 BC):

Paanini gives a scientific analysis of the structure of Sanskrit in his Astaadhyaayii. Bloomfield described the grammar of Paanini as a 'monumental work of human intelligence'. Patanjali, an early student of the Paaninian school, defines the purpose of the Astaadhyaayi as the preservation of the ritual language in its traditional form; the capacity of generation of forms from one pattern to other; the sanctity of the grammatical science itself as in integral part of scripture; the economy of description to facilitate memorization; and the clarity of description. Paanini wrote a mathematical grammar capable of generating new forms which also accounted for all extant forms and constructions in his language. Vidya Niwas Misra (1966), in The Descriptive Technique of Paanini (Mouton), says, 'Paanini did not explicitly define the term Vaakya (the sentence) but has done so through the devices of (1) marking sentence boundary (avasaana = final pause); (2) describing sandhi between one pada (word) and the other, thereby implicitly implying that this sandhi operates in order to give the ultimate sentence accent patterns; (3) making a finite verb form (tiN) as a marker for a clause and describing the types of clauses in terms of the various differentiating connectives; (4) describing the boundary of specific sentencetypes in terms of the quantity and pitch of the sentence-final vowel; (5) describing the sandhi operation of the word-final (padaantd) and sentence-final in terms of phonemic alternation; and (6) describing the entire grammar in terms of substitution at lower levels of the various syntactic concepts which are supra-morphemic and are close to "sememes".' Misra argues that 'Paanini himself has implicitly defined a complex sentence as a combination of clauses (marked by a finite verb form tiN), which may be coordinate {samaana) or non-coordinate {asamaana), and which may be connected by connectives like ca, yaavat, etc., and a simple sentence as a combination of padas which may be marked either by a declensional or a conjugational ending. So, a sentence may be algebraically defined, as rewritten by Misra in modern terms.

The rules are supported by lists of items. Paanini maintained a distinction between Kaaraka and Vibhakti, case meaning and case form. Paanini shows a scientific and balanced judgement which could reconcile the opposite views and controversies regarding important topics of grammar and their method of treatment. The most acute grammatical controversies in his days were those concerning the derivation of nouns from verbs. Paanini's views on the subject represent a synthesis. He gives us comprehensive lists of suffixes and roots but he does not carry to extremes the theory of treating all nouns as verbal derivatives. He also recognizes the formation of fortuitous words in languages for which no certain derivations could be vouchsafed. In meaning he talks only about the meanings of words. Otherwise, he talks about accent, the lengthening of vowels, and he surveys place-names. He also discusses the formation of compound words. The technique of Paaninian description is an achievement. His grammar represents a 'mathematical model of linguistic description in a framework which is one whole and unless one goes through the entire grammar one cannot generate or analyze a communicable unit of utterance ... it is both a generative and an analytical grammar.'

Kaatyaayana (300 BC):

Kaatyaayana, the author of Vaarttikas, is also mainly concerned with the derivation of words. He says that the relationship between words and their meaning is derived from worldly usage and frequently appeals to current usage as the final authority. Patanjali (150 BC): Patanjali in his 'Mahaabhaasya1 discusses the ideas of both Paanini and Kaatyaayana. He is mainly concerned with the derivation of words. Patanjali feels that 'word, idea and object are really distinct entities and that though in ordinary experience they are found to be interrelated they may be separated from one another by a process of abstraction. He stresses artha (i. e., the purpose served), and prakarana (i. e., the context of situation). It is quite interesting to note that J. R. Firth's ideas are well discussed by Patanjali. Patanjali often appeals to educated usage as the final authority in deciding meaning while discussing the ideas of Paanini, Patanjali states that according to Paanini the meaning of a word is both universal and particular. Patanjali distinguishes between two aspects of words, the sphota and the dhvani; the former is the permanent element in the word and the latter is the attribute of the former. (This roughly corresponds to Saussure's langue and parole). Patanjali was fully conscious of the importance of the semantic aspect of language and lays special emphasis on the fact that a word is a word only when it has meaning and not just an aggregate of letters. However, he has not made his theory explicit.

Bhartrihari (AD 450):

Bhartrhari, the author of Vaakyapadiiya (dealing with the philosophy of grammar), and a commentary of Patanjali's works, is the first Indian grammarian who has attempted to build up a theory of semantics. Bhartrhari's main contribution to the problem of semantics is the theory of sphota . This great grammarian-philosopher believed in the transcendental speech-essence (sabda-tatvd). The central idea of his philosophy is that the speech-principle has three stages in the course of its manifestation, namely, vaikharii, madhyamaa and pasyantii. The first stage is the manifestation of speech {vaikharii), i. e., the actual sounds uttered by the speaker and heard by the listener. The next stage is the manifestation of the speech principle {madhyamaa), i. e., the linguistically relevant elements in a sentence. Pasyantii is the supreme reality of a flash of insight. The word or the sentence considered as a single meaningful symbol is called the sphota. That term sphota is derived from the root sphut which means 'to burst'. According to Bhartrihari, speech and thought are only two aspects of the same principle. The sphota is simply the linguistic sign in its aspect of meaning-bearer. A sentence is to be considered as 'a single undivided utterance' and its meaning is an instantaneous flash of insight. The sentence meaning is to be grasped as a unity. The divisions into words and word-meanings are merely useful means in the study of language and have no reality in themselves. The central idea underlying Bhartrhari's linguistic theory is the view that the sentence is the fundamental linguistic fact and that words are unreal abstractions from the sentence. Patanjali also talks about sphota. But to him the sphota is not a single indivisible symbol considered as the meaning-bearer, but only the unchanging sound-unit, or a time-series pattern of such units. This appears like the modern theory of phonemes. Patanjali says that even though the letters cannot coexist at the time of utterance, they can do so in the mind of the speaker as well as the listener, and that the order of sequence of letters is also to be grasped in the mind on the basis of meaning. Thus it seems that, according to Patanjali, the unity of the word is partly due to the unity of meaning; the simultaneous grasping of the word is somehow effected in the mind even though the letters that make it up are pronounced separately; the knowledge of the sequence of the order of letters is also there. He does not discuss the problem in detail. It is Bhartrhari who develops the theory of symbols in his sphota doctrine. Bhartrhari feels that words or sentences can be considered under two aspects, as sound patterns or as meaning-bearing symbols. This fundamental dichotomy between form and sentence in language is mentioned by Paanini too, but it is Bhartrhari who has formulated a clear doctrine. According to Bhartrhari the sphota-the word or the sentence located in the minds of the speaker and the listener and taken as an integral symbol-is revealed by the sounds produced in a fixed order. Each sound helps in manifesting this sphota, the first one vaguely, the next one more clearly and so on, until the last one, aided by the impressions of preceding perceptions reveals it clearly and distinctly. It is the same sphota that is revealed by each of these sounds or letters. This sphota is indivisible. The sphota theory is quite in line with the modern 'gestalt psychology' which believes in the primacy of 'Gestalten'. The earlier methods proceeded from the elements to the whole;, but the present tendency is from the whole to the element. Dr, S. Radhakrishnan states that the sphota is the indivisible idea with its dual form of sabda, word and artha, meaning. The word or sentence is really a psychic entity which is an indivisible unit, the symbol which carries the meaning, but which can be revealed or physically reproduced whenever wanted.

Naagesabhatta (AD 1670-1750) :

Naagesabhatta feels that there is justification for the existence of the sphota and for its unity in the realization-'this is one word, one sentence'. He postulates eight different varieties of the sphota. The yoga school gave tacit support to the sphota theory. Later writers got confused and felt that the sphota doctrine was something mystical and even the modern writers on the subject have not distinguished the purely linguistic theory from the metaphysical superstructure erected on its basis.
(B) Naiyaayikas (The Logicians ): The Nyaaya School of Indian logic has its basic text in Nyaaya-suutras of Goutama Aksapaada (AD J00) on which Vaatsyaayana (AD 300) wrote the Nyaayabhaasya. In the tenth century Jayantabhatta wrote the Nyaayamanjari, which is a comprehensive work on the nyaaya-system. The theory of natural relationship between words and meaning is rejected by the logicians and they believe that it is by the conventional significance that the meaning of a word is understood. Early logicians like Goutama and Vaatsyaayana have not discussed the problem of the sentence; they have discussed the exact import of words. According to him the sentence is only a collection of words and sentence-meaning is only the mutual association of word-meanings. Later logicians like Jayanta modified this idea. According to them the words expressed their isolated word-meanings; they have another power which indicates mutual relationship among word-meanings. The function of this power is to reveal the meanings of words contained in a sentence as being mutually related. Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastry says that the logicians' idea that mutual relation of word-mcMinnj's is conveyed by a process of suggestion is in line with Jespcrsen's view that' suggestion is impression through suppression'. But ihc idea of suggested meaning is too vague and subjective to have ;iny place in logical meaning where precision and accuracy are demanded. The Buddhist logicians like Dinnaaga (AD
450), Dharmakiirti, (AD 600), Saantaraksita (AD 750) and Ratnakiirti (AD 1000) have also discussed the problem of meaning. They began with n negative approach to meaning saying that the meaning of a sentence is not the mutual association of the wordmeanings but the mutual exclusion of these, i. e., the meaning of the word 'cow' is the negation of 'noncow'. But this was widely criticised. Later Buddhistic scholars modified their theory. They argue that there is no affirmation without negation and in a single word both the notions are brought about simultaneously-the positive meaning is known directly and the negative meaning by implication. Ralnakiirti rejects even this view and comes to the conclusion that the essence of meaning consists in affirmation qualified by the negation of all other things. This simultaneous cognition of the positive and negative elements of meaning is amatter of experience.

(c) The Miimaamsakas:

This school, concerned with the interpretation of Vedic texts, evolved the main principles of interpretation of statements or sentences. The Miimaamsa type of definition lays stress on the necessity of mutual expectancy among words in a sentence in order to bring about the unity of idea. Jaiminii (BC 300) was the first to talk about sentences and according to him a sentence is a group of words serving a single purpose. This school makes a distinction between interpretation based on etymology and interpretation based on usage and they believe that usage is stronger than etymology. They have argued against the sphota theory. Kumaarila bhatta (AD 600) says that the meaning of a word is determined by usage. Thus, those sounds uttered in a particular sequence which made sense to us when we first learned them, will express the same meaning at all times in the future. Hence, there is no necessity for postulating the sphota. He feels that the meaning of a sentence is always conveyed by the meanings of words. Unlike the words, the sentence does not have a separate meaning of its own. He also argues that in the case of elliptical sentences it is necessary to supply the omitted words themselves in order to have the verbal comprehension of meaning. However, a different school, headed by Prabhaakara in the same century, denies that words convey a meaning except in the context of a sentence. Each word has a meaning, but it is also clear that the purpose of the word is to serve as part of a sentence. This school lays stress on the natural method by which children learn the meaning of words. They have pushed the argument to the extent that no word can be comprehended as having an independent meaning, when isolated from a sentence. They do not deny the existence of individual words but only assert that it is impossible to comprehend the isolated meaning of a word apart from its relation in a sentence. So in the case of elliptical sentences it is easier to supply the necessary meaning than to presume the missing words as implied and the presence of a word is not essential for the recollection of its meaning. The Miimaamsakas were concerned with metaphorical transfers of meaning. They made a distinction between the primary meaning of a word and its secondary meanings and asserted that the figurative meaning proceeds directly from the primary meaning.

(D) Aalamkaarikas (The Literary Critics):

Indian literary critics, like Bharata, Kaalidaasa, Dandin (AD 650), Vaamana (AD 800), Aanandavardhana (author of Dhvanyaaloka, AD 850), Bhoja (AD 1000) and many others, have discussed the problem of meaning. Here we will take up only the main trends without going into details. Aanandavardhana took into account Bhartrhari's theory and developed his theory of 'suggestion' (vyanjanaa). Under the term artha or meaning, he includes not only the cognitive, logical meaning but also the emotive elements and the social-cultural significance of utterances which are suggested with the help of contextual factors. He lays great stress on the suggestive element in poetry and advocates the dhvani theory, which is 'suggestion' applied poetry. He says that there are three functions or powers of words: the primary, the secondary and the suggestive. He also makes a distinction between intentional metaphors and unintentional metaphors and points out the importance of the former in enriching the content of literature by suggesting new ideas and by stimulating subtle shades of meanings. The dhvani theory of Aanandavardhana is an advancement on the sphota theory. The sphota theory emphasized the importance of taking the whole utterance as a significant unitary linguistic symbol. Aanandavardhana has developed the theory of dhvani on the lines suggested by Bhartrhari. But since he was concerned only with the question of literary appreciation, he did not discuss fully all the intricate problems connected with speech activity. He openly declares his indebtedness to the sphota doctrine. Aanandavardhana does not follow the usual division of speech utterances into sentences and words, into stems and suffixes, and the distinction between the primary and transferred senses of words. He accepts all these, but, in addition, he postulates a third potency of language, 'the capacity to suggest a meaning other than its literal meaning'. His basic idea is that utterances possess a literal meaning and can also convey a further meaning-'the social-cultural meaning'. He did not confine himself to words and sentences as indicators of meaning; he included all the contextual factors, intonation, stress, gestures and the sounds used in the utterances, as well as the literal sense. Emotion is not something which can be expressed directly by words; it can only be suggested. As seen earlier, the other schools like the Nyaaya and Miimaamsa do not recognize the suggestive power of words at all. Later grammarians, however, accept it as necessary from the standpoint of grammar. Later all the schools felt that the primary sense of a word is definite and fixed; but the suggested sense changes according to the changes in the contextual factors. Aanandavardhana and his followers accepted the grammarians' view about the unity of sentence-meaning. The dhvani theory to a large extent operates in terms of larger units and not individual words, but at the same time 'it is possible from another point of view to indicate that the operative factor in producing the overtones of the implied meaning may on occasions be a single word or phrase.

Tolkappiyam, written, perhaps during the early Sangam period (500 BC to AD 200), is full-of information on, among other things, ancient Dravidian linguistic theories. Tolkappiyam is divided into three major sections: phonology/graphology, morphology/syntax, and semantics. Tolkappiyam treats communication as a complex phenomenon that includes several factors like the flora and fauna, the seasons of the year, the time of day, natural objects and forces like the sun, the moon; and the wind, cultural aspects and conventions, emotional and psychological status, the status of the individual and linguistic appropriateness. Tolkappiyam shows that the use of language is related to ecology, ethnography, sociology and psychology. As in Indian classical music, in which some ragas are sung only in the morning, some only at night, and some during certain seasons (since the mood of a given raga can be communicated only at a specific time), the use of language must harmonize the landscape of the heart and the landscape outside to make the processes of communication effective. Some of the Indian concepts may even question the notion that language is arbitrary; the recitation of some mantras is said to cure certain ailments, bring mental peace, and control blood pressure.

Conclusion :

Most of the literary and linguistic efforts of the ancient races have been inspired by religious motives. This is pre-eminently the case with India. Here we have from the earliest days a mass of sacred literature embodied in Vedic hymns of which every syllable was carefully preserved. In the course of ages when the language of the Vedic hymns ceased to be spoken, attempts were made to understand the Vedic speech clearly and from that date begins the study of linguistic phenomena in India. This was destined in later ages to produce the most complete grammar and the most exhaustive analysis of any language in the world. The post-vedic language in which the first poetic spark was flashed in the earliest epic, viz., the ramayana by the primordial poet (adikavi) valmiki, was the classical sanskrit language. It started its onward march with this great epic (mahakavya) followed by another great and more voluminous epic viz., the mahabharata , by vedavyasa. The posterior sanskrit language gave birth to a long and rich literary tradition of legendary literature (puranas), epics, dramas, lyrics, prose-romances and others literary products. Simultaneously, a great enlightening tradition of philosophical speculations and other technical literature like architecture, painting and sculpture, law and jurisprudence, grammatical literature and literary criticism developed and continued - all in the classical sanskrit language. The convener of the panel will show how the same sanskrit language turned out to be modern as well without serious changes in its grammar and vocabulary, though some other streams like the Buddhist and jaina appeared in the scenario. Thus the sanskrit language is both classical and modern in virtually the same form unlike other classical languages like greek and latin. Philosophical speculations are a great treasure of the indian culture.


References Cited:
1. Raja, Kunjunni, K. (1963), Indian Theories of Meaning, Adyar Library.
2. Misra, Vidya Niwas (1966), The Descriptive Technique of Panini, Mouton.
3. Taraporewala. Sorabji (1978), Elements of the Science of Language, Calcutta University
4.S.K. Verma , N. Krishnaswamy (1989. 2000), Modern Linguistics, Oxford University Press