40 th ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis 1 DISPOSITIONAL CREATIVITY IN QLB AS A TELUGU WORD-FORMATION PROCESS: EVIDENCE FOR KA:RMIK LINGUISTIC THEORY Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, Proverbial Linguistics Group, Hyderabad Abstract Recently I discovered a Telugu word-formation process in which a word within a word is formed by bifurcating it with a quotation within the word which I call Quotational Lexical Bifurcation (QLB). For example, da:runa „terrible‟ is a word in Telugu. This word is bifurcated into two words by using a quotation marks: “da: ‘runa’” “terrible „loan‟” (quotational lexical bifurcation by “… „ ‟ ”) to include a contextual action of “agricultural loans” given by banks and thereby express two concepts within a word. This process is very productive yielding regularly a large number of words in Telugu journalese since 1997(?) - as far as I know - to encapsulate a contextual action meaning within the bifurcated word. This word-formation process is immensely significant because it offers conclusive evidence to show that it is neither genetically inherited (as in generative grammar) nor socially generated (as in SFL and other functional grammars) but dispositionally created and then collectively (socially) promoted to survive as a new word-formation process in Telugu with a spill-over effect into English also – „Saga‟r, „break‟through, real e„state‟, „mini‟mum risk, etc are some examples of QLB. With empirical linguistic evidence using the Cause – Means – Effect (Goal) Processing Model of Language, it will be shown that language is as it is not merely because of what it has to do (Halliday 1973: 34) but because of what it is intended to do what it has to do (Bhuvaneswar 2009,2011) – as the workman, so is his work. References Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2009). “Theory and Practice of Paremiology: A Plea for Proverbial Linguistics as a Special Branch”. Keynote Address, The Third International Colloquium on Paremiology, Tavira, Portugal --------- (2011). “Proverbial Linguistics: Theory and Practice in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Paradigm”. Plenary Speech, International Symposium on Proverbs, University of Diderot, Paris, France Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold I. Introduction There are many word-formation processes in Telugu such as affixation, compounding, and reduplication which basically involve only oral application of the sound system and not the written system of the language. However, around 15 years ago, in Telugu journalism, a new trend in word-formation was initiated by bifurcating a word with quotation marks and creating a new word by forming a word-within-a-word. This new word brings forth novelty, surprise, and brevity in its form by capturing a new contextual meaning and not only saves printing space but also enhances the aesthetic appeal of the news it reports. Thus, it aims to attract the reader‟s attention quickly and increase the popularity of the concerned newspaper on a competitive basis. This new trend has become very productive and survived for all these years to merit our attention as a specific word-formation process along with other word-formation processes in Telugu.
29
Embed
Quotational Lexical Bifurcation in Telugu as a Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory Word-formation Process
This article describes and provides a principled account of quotational lexical bifurcation as a word-formation process in Telugu and offers evidence for KLT and against Chomsky's formal and Halliday's SFL and Langacker's Cognitive Linguistic theories
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
40th
ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis
1
DISPOSITIONAL CREATIVITY IN QLB AS A TELUGU WORD-FORMATION
2. To explain it further, according to the formalists such as Chomsky, language is as it is
because of a common genetic linguistic inheritance of the human species from which
language universals are derived. So, as a human being is born, there is a language faculty
or programme already wired up in the human brain with a Universal Grammar and
Principles and Parameters that implement it. And according to the functionalists such as
Halliday, language is as it is because of the universality of the uses to which language is
put in human societies from which language universals are derived. So there is no
language faculty or programme already wired up in the human brain as a human being is
born but it evolved socially as human beings conducted their living to fulfill their needs.
As a result, language is as it is because of what it has to do. In other words, the formal
and functional approaches to language are diametrically opposite in their fundamental
premise of how language is created: formalists view language as genetic; and
functionalists as social. The cognitivists view grammar as conceptualization and
language is developed as it is used and they also do not agree with the innateness
hypothesis of the formalists.
The ka:rmik linguist believes that language evolved as dispositional action from a
ka:rmik processing of language. In this view, human beings are genetically endowed with
Prakruthi (Nature) that consists of three GuNa:s as its internal constituents entwined like
three strands in a rope which serve as the source of all phenomenal creation in its
supracosmic-macrocosmic-microcosmic variety-range-depth. It manifests itself in human
beings as a qualified energy (avidya, literally ignorance) complex of sattva (luminosity),
rajas (activity), and tamas (inertia). In each and every human being, it is constituted in a
particular composition and that serves as the entire basis for forming likes and dislikes
leading to traits, acquiring knowledge leading to his (phenomenal) knowledge base, and
ways of performing action leading to va:sana:s (internalized habits of doing things
instinctively). All these three components form a homogeneous complex of human
personality which is called svabha:vam (disposition). In this svabha:vam, there is a
linguistic component that genetically inherits the hardware (but not the software) of the
language programme, that is, va:gindriyam (the vocal organ) which acts in collaboration
with the power of vimarsa (analyticity) that conceptualizes, patterns and structures, and
materializes all the three types of human activity- mental, vocal, and physical – according
to the qualities of svabha:vam of the individual/group. Since language has the power of
semiosis, it is used to observe, interpret, identify, represent, create, communicate,
initiate, coordinate, and experience action. What is more, the goal of lingual action is to
serve as a means to construct dispositional reality and fulfill one‟s desires for their
40th
ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis
5
experience through the results of action. However, the software is not genetically
inherited. To explain further, the Universal Grammar of Language with its Principles and
Parameters is not genetically inherited but all that is required to process the experience of
language and produce the output of a particular grammar of language through vimarsa
(analyticity) is genetically inherited. This vimarsa processes the experience of language
through the Universal Science of Action via the Universal Science of Lingual Action via
the Universal Science of Living to produce the output of the grammar of language in an
individual. In other words, principles like the locality principle in UG, or parameters like
wh-parameter, null subject parameter, and head position parameter are discovered in their
experience of language, but not identified from a previous knowledge of them already
transferred genetically in the genes. Subsequently, they use this grammar to construct
their dispositional reality. As a matter of fact, language acquisition takes place owing to
this dispositional functional pressure in children (for acquisition of their native language)
– look at how the first cry of a child erupts out of dispositional functional pressure that
impels a desire to seek milk – or elders (for second language acquisition) to construct
their dispositional reality and its experience through the results of their activity. The
proof of such a view is in the creation of new languages by bifurcation of an existing
autopoietic and dissipative structure of language and its components by dispositional
choices. The ka:rmik linguist also believes that function is not the primary cause for the
creation, or acquisition, or transmission of language since a particular function may or
may not be realized by all the human beings through the same means: there are always
alternate ways of saying the same thing or doing it – the same function can be expressed
by a variety of forms or the same form can serve many functions in language. Hence,
choice and variation in language typology cannot be motivated by a mere functional
explanation without invoking dispositional choice. For example, the same meaning is
conveyed either by an SVO pattern in English, or SOV pattern in Telugu, or an OVS
pattern Hixkaryana to express the act of “X - eating - an apple”. Moreover, function in
conscious action is a product of disposition – for example, the same means, say, the
internet can be assigned different functions of searching for knowledge, or sending
business messages or simply chatting, or even arranging marriages – the functions
emerge out of dispositional creativity by antecedence; alternatively, the same function,
say, sending a message, can be performed through post, couriers, or telephone, or through
doves – again, the same function is performed by different means through dispositional
creativity. Therefore, according to KLT, language is at it is not because of what it does
(a la Halliday) but because of what it is intended to do what it does. Healthy human
beings, for example, have been genetically inherited with a disposition that produces a
dispositional functional pressure to desire to construct their dispositional reality through
coordination of coordination of action by lingual communication by dispositional choice
– this is due to their complex disposition that impels complex desires that require
semiotic communication to fulfill them, for example, a desire to bring their children up in
a particular cultural tradition.
3. The formalists (e.g., Chomsky) regard language primarily as a mental phenomenon
whereas the functionalists (e.g., Halliday) regard it as a societal phenomenon. Again,
there is a contradiction in the conceptualization of language. From this perspective,
according to the formalists, language is a psychological phenomenon whereas according
40th
ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis
6
to the functionalists, it is a social phenomenon. To explain it further, language is an
internal phenomenon according to the formalists and the social and cognitive functions of
language do not impinge on the internal organization of language. On the other hand,
according to the functionalists, language has functions that are external to the linguistic
system itself and most importantly the external functions influence the internal
organization of the linguistic system. Therefore, there is another contradiction in these
two theories with regard to the influence of external forces: formalists say that external
forces do not influence the internal organization of language while the functionalists say
that they do. The ka:rmik linguist regards language as a semiotic system dispositionally
created and used as an internal reaction to the external context to observe, interpret,
identify, represent, communicate, initiate, coordinate action for the experience of its
results.
4. The formal approach (e.g., Chomsky) explains the acquisition of language by a child due
to a built in capacity to learn a language. Functionalists (e.g., Halliday) explain it in
terms of the development of the child's communicative needs and abilities in society.
Again, there is contradiction with respect to the acquisition of language: formalists
support "nature" and functionalists "nurture". The ka:rmik linguists explain the
acquisition of language by a child due to a built in capacity to learn a language to fulfill
its desires in the context and experience the results of action, i.e, by nature which is
nurtured.
Dell Hymes (1974) in his article "Why Linguistics needs the Sociolinguist" discusses some
of the important problems not answered by the formalists and lists them in seven points as
explained below:
5. The structural (i.e. formalist) approach considers the structure of language (code) as
grammar whereas the functional approach considers the structure of speech (act, event)
as ways of speaking. In other words, the structural approach focuses on language as a
formal autonomous system of phonology, syntax, and semantics. As such it is
independent of the purposes or functions which these forms are used to serve in human
affairs. The functional approach on the other hand considers language as language in use
which consists of speech acts, events, and situations and so dependent on the purposes or
functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs. Hence, there is an
opposition in these views: independent Vs dependent. The ka:rmik approach considers
language as language in experience, as a means for experience, an I-I-I system of form-
function-cognition generated-specified-directed-materialized by disposition in a context
for the experience of results of action. As such it is an experiential system in which form,
its cognition, and use (function) join together as means for experience – it is language in
use through its dispositional choice and experience. The structure of language
(grammar) is dispositionally derived from the ways of speaking (function) which is
dispositionally derived from its conceptualization by cognition which is dispositionally
derived from its ways of construction of experience by Individual-Collective-Contextual-
Conjunction (ICCC) of disposition. To sum up, it is a product of dispositional reality.
40th
ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis
7
6. Use merely implements what is analyzed as code and the analysis of code should be prior
to the analysis of use – this is the formalist view of language structure and use. The
functionalist view is opposite to this view: analysis of use should be prior to the analysis
of code because organization of use discloses additional features and relations. In the
functionalist view, use and code are in an integral (dialectical) relation - note the spelling
of dialectical derived from dialectic: it is not dialectal which is derived from dialect, one
variety of language. In the formalist view, they are in a sort of linear relation. Hence,
both the views are contradictory in their premises. The ka:rmik linguist views disposition
(and experience) as prior to use and code since both code and its use are disposition
dependent. Semantics of formalists becomes pragmatics of functionalists which becomes
ka:rmatics (ka;rmik pragmatics) of ka:rmik linguists.
7. According to the formalists, language is referential in its function with fully semanticized
uses as the norm whereas the functionalists deal with the gamut of stylistic or social
functions. In other words, formalism is concerned with the sentential meaning while
functionalism with the utterance meaning. Ka:rmik linguistics is concerned with
experiential meaning as it is derived from a dispositional understanding of sentence
meaning as utterance meaning.
8. Elements and structures are analytically arbitrary (in a cross-cultural or historical
perspective) or universal (in a theoretical perspective) in formalism while they are
ethnographically appropriate in functionalism. In KLT, elements and structures are
dispositional representations of action from the Universal Science of Action by the
Universal Science of Lingual Action through the Universal Science of Living. Hence
their universality is derived from the universality of action patterns as their particularity
in a culture.
9. There is a functional equivalence of all languages in formalism while there is functional
differentiation of languages, varieties, and styles in functionalism. All languages are
essentially (potentially) equal in the formalist paradigm while they are not necessarily
existentially (actually) equivalent. In ka:rmik linguistics, there is an experiential
equivalence in languages with a formal-functional differentiation.
10. Formalism studies language in terms of a single homogeneous code and community
("replication of uniformity") while functionalism studies it in terms of the speech
community as the matrix of code-repertoires or speech styles ("organization of diversity).
Ka:rmik linguistics studies language in terms of the Universal Science of Living
mediated through the Universal Science of Lingual Action derived from the Universal
Science of Action by the individuals collectively in a language community (dispositionally organized gradual evolution of diversity from the unity of action).
11. Formalism takes for granted or arbitrarily postulates fundamental concepts such as
speech community, speech act, fluent speaker, functions of speech and of languages
whereas functionalism considers them as problematic and therefore to be investigated.
40th
ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis
8
Ka:rmik linguistics considers them as dispositionally conceptualized and therefore should
be interpreted through the universal sciences of action-living-lingual action.
As language has not only formal but also functional properties, we need a theory that can
accommodate both these properties. However, in view of the differences in their theoretical
premises, it is difficult to combine both the paradigms and try to account for the formal and
functional properties of language together in an eclectic approach.
The basic principle of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory is based on the fundamental assumption that all
action is dispositionally generated, specified and directed. Lingual action is also no exception to
this since it is one type of action human beings perform. In this view, disposition is at the base of
all activity and any action springs from disposition as follows:
(1) Disposition Effort Action Result Experience.
Again, whenever an action is performed, it is performed by a choice as follows:
(Choice) In the case of the formation of lexical quotational bifurcation (LQB), the point of departure sets
in at the very onset of the word-formation processes. The Maker of the Process is not satisfied
with the existing processes as he explores the existing processes by CEV. So he rejects them by a
dispositional choice (negative choice) and embarks upon CNV by another dispositional choice.
At this level, he again embarks on CEV – impelled by rajasik-sattvik disposition - to find out
40th
ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis
26
what innovative options would satisfy his desire to form a suitable word. In the process, his
sa:ttvik-ra:jasik disposition impels him to choose quotation marks from among the other choices
of hyphen, dash, bold, italic, etc. punctuation marks and create the bifurcation of the word into
two to mean two-in-one meaning in a compact manner; otherwise, it will be ta:masik-ra:jasik.
A very simplified network will be as follows.
Network 3. Ka:rmik Algorithmic Network for Quotational Lexical Bifurcation (Choice)
Affixation
Word-formation
Processes Compounding
+
CEV Conversion Dispositional Choice
_
Reduplication
…….. etc Rejection of the Variables
Hyphen
Dispositional Choice
Dash C.N.V. (Desire for New Variables) D.F.P.
………….
Quotation
Marks
CEV Initial
Dispositional Choice of Quotation Marks Medial
Final position of the
“ “ word da:runa
Choice
da:”runa”
Once the variables are chosen and the process is created, the next stage is its application,
standardization, and transmission.
4. Stage of Application Application of QLB is context bound as a dispositional action-reaction to the contextual action.
In the absolute sense, QLB is dispositionally bound since the user has the ultimate choice to use
or not use it in a context. When his dispositional cognition impacts on ( ) the contextual action,
he will perceive the contextual meaning of what he wants to write and then by a dispositional
bias leading to a QLB response bias chooses a QLB form of the word and uses it.
(40) Disposition in Context Contextual Action Contextual Meaning
Form of the Word QLB.
40th
ISDL QLB as a Telugu Word-formation Process: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis
27
5. Stage of Transmission
QLB process of word-formation is dispositional-contextual and so is inherently neologistic. This
is a very interesting extension of both neologisms and pragmatics. Generally, what is transmitted
is the QLB word-formation process and not the QLB word per se. However, when the same
context recurs with the same type of action, a QLB word is repeatedly used. For example, a word
like (41) na’garam’ garam “city (is) „hot‟ hot” indicating hot temperatures, (42) vi‘chitra’
va:rta “surprising „picture‟ news”, etc. as a picture caption recur in newspapers; in addition,
words like (43) Ja‘gun’ “Jagan „gun‟fighting”are also seen repeatedly since their similar
contextual uses recur in the context of action. However, repetitions lose their surprise and
novelty and innovation value and such words function like ordinary words, and sometimes, they
will be irritating.
Transmission of QLB is done by the technique of Individual-Collective-Contextual Conjunction
of Action and its Standardization (ICCCS) as shown in the following network 4.
Material Layer 3
Temporal Layer Context Spatial Layer
2 4
a. 1
Legend: transmission from ….. to ….. I-I-I Relation Cognitive Reality I Individual; C Collective; I / CI Individual / Collective IPC Interpersonal Communication