What is the Meaning of a Word?

2010

Sabda has got a prominent place in Indian philosophy. Most of the theistic schools of philosophy unanimously accepted śabda also as a means of valid cognition. Grammarians, Logicians and etymologists gave us several classifications of the concept of śabda or 'word'. A śabda uttered must denote a meaning. Acquiring meaning of words can be twofold -by self experience and by a trust worthy person. When one hears a sentence and decodes its meaning properly, it is possible only through a definite linguistic understanding. This linguistic understanding is called śābdabodha in Sanskrit. To acquire proper śābdabodha, sastras gave us eight means of denotative functions and fourteen kinds of powerful deciding factors which govern the meaning in ambiguity. In this paper I would like to discuss the fourteen deciding factors of meaning such as association, dissociation etc., according to Bhartrhari with examples and try to demonstrate on how these factors can be applied on polysemous words which makes the theory also universal with regard to other languages.

The starting point of this communication is M I, 240 l. 27 - 241 l. 5 ad vt. 29 ad A 1.2.64, where lopa of the affix KviP, such as in the case of agnicit- and of somasut-, is mentioned as the standard exception to the often asserted need of a phisical input to cause verbal cognition. In fact the principle according to which “there is no understanding of a sense (arthasya gatiḥ) without employing the word-form denoting that (antareṇa tadvācinaḥ śabdasya prayogaṃ)” is dismissed only in a restricted number of cases. The dual or plural meaning which is realized thanks to the retention of only one form (ekaśeṣa) is one among these exceptions, which is thus emphasized in the quoted passage. On the other hand, in a similar way Patañjali reflects on some bahuvrīhi-compounds, such as candramukhī “moon-faced <woman>” (M I, 328 ll. 4-5 ad A 2.1.55), where currently there is understanding (saṃpratyayaḥ) of a quality even when it has not been specified (anirdiśyamānasyāpi guṇasya). As underlined by Patañjali, a further operation is here compulsorily implied, namely the selection of one out of many (though unmentioned) moon’s qualities which could be involved in the traditional corresponding vigraha. How comes that an effect (the meaning) can be grasped in absence of its cause (the uttered word)? Why the risk of integrating a whatever speech-unit is regularly averted? The concept of prayogaviṣaya- “the specific usage-domain” of each śabda- seems to be crucial when this kind of meaning-processing has to be accounted for, as suggested e.g. in M I. 158 l. 11 ad vt. 2 ad A I.1.60. Furthermore, with regard to the lopa-cases, the precise pattern of prasaṅga-procedure is explicitly resorted to by Patañjali commenting on vt. 4 ad A 1.1.60: as a rule a specific śabda actually does exist as an input, although it can be only perceived elsewhere. Focusing especially on the occurrences of the terms prasakta- and prasaṅga- in the M, this paper aims to tackle the question of the discrimen between zero-replacements and the other cases of denotatio in absentia pointed out by Patañjali.

Pratidhwani, the echo, 2019

'What is meaning'? This is a topic of interest for linguists, philosophers, Computational linguists and those who deal with NLP, Artificial Intelligence etc. How does a Natural language convey efficiently the ideas from speaker to listener? This topic is studied here, based on the discussions available in Vakyapadiya, an ancient Sanskrit text. In modern linguistics 'word meanings' are analyzed often and the most famous theories are 'Referential theory, Ideational theory and truth-value theory. A very significant theory suggested by Vakyapadiya in this regard is the 'Akhandavakya sidhanta'-the sentence is the unit of language, and sentential meaning happens as a flash of understanding in the mind.

Journal of South Asian Studies (Minami Asia Kenkyu), 1999

Published in "Bulletin d’Études Indiennes" (Proceedings of the workshop « The Indian Traditions of Language Studies », ICHoLS XI, Potsdam), 2015

1996

I suggest that mlecchita vikalpa is Indus Script cipher. As a writing system, mlecchita vikalpa 'writing system' complements two other arts and sciences taught to the youth: akṣaramuṣṭika kathanam, 'messaging by wrist-finger gestures', deśa bhāṣā jñānam 'knowledge of dialects', according to Vidyāsamuddeśa, objective of education detailed in a list of 64 arts by Vātsyāyana. Kunjunni Raja provides a significant explanation for the word vikalpa in the context of a detailed narrative of ancient Indian theories of meaning or शाब्द--बोध m. "verbal knowledge" , apprehension of the meaning of words , perception of the verbal or literal sense (of a sentence &c.). "Even the Buddhists accept the relation between the śabda and the vikalpa of the mentral construct of the image, and recognize the relationship between the two." The word śabda means 'sound of word and meaning' (K. Kunjuni Raja, 1969, Indian Theories of Meaning, Adyar Library and Research Centre, p.37). sphoṭa as a linguistic meaning-bearer is an imaging process in mental faculties resulting in vāc, 'speech'. The invention of a writing system as a linguistic device creates an image of a word by the object the sound of the word signified. Thus, a kunda 'young bull' is written down (inscribed, say, on a seal or tablet) to signify the vikalpa, 'mental construct of the imaged' śabda of word- kunda. Thus, kunda 'young bull' image is the mental construct of the śabda the sound with meaning 'young bull' A homonym of this word then yields the cognate word with the meaning kunda, 'fine gold'. पश्यत् [p= 611,2]mf(अन्ती)n. seeing , beholding &c पश्यन्ती f. N. of a partic. sound L. (Monier-Williams) I suggest that the sound of a word is 'seen' as a mental contruct of an image whicgh evokes the word for communication or expression, in vāc, 'speech'. Hence, the use of this expression पश्यन्ती in ancient Indian theories of meaning. When a young bull is signified on an Indus Script inscription, the vikalpa 'mental construct of the image' is recognized (paśyantī) both by the speaker and the hearer as kundar. In the mentral construct of the word image of kundar evokes the sound and meaning associated with two homonyms, kundar 'young bull' and kunda 'fine gold'. Thus, mlecchita vikalpa of kundar as a young bull a a signifiant, results in the sphoṭa, 'bursting forth' of kunda as 'fine gold' as the signifie 'signified'. This is the same rebus princple of representing signifier-and signified by cognate words, as used in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Tolkāppiyan refers to all words as semantic indicatore: ellāccollum poruḷ kur̥ittanave This statement is comparable to the Mīmāmsaka-s who consider Vr̥tti (function of a word in relation to the sense) as a separate power category, padārtha, 'meaning of word or thing'. This Vr̥tti evolves into the stage of vaikharī, 'the uttered expression' or 'the śabda as it is expressed as speech or noise from the throat, tongue, lips and teeth.' "The Indian conception of the relation between śabda and artha (word and sense) is quite analogus to de Saussure's definition of a linguistic sign as a relation between the signifiant and the signifie. He says: Le signe linguistique unit non une chose et un nom, mais un concept et une image acoustique."(opcit., p.25). The hypertexts of Indus Script provide both the signifiant and the signifie when the speaker and hearer recognize the śabda with two padārtha-s, 'two meanings of word or thing'. The young bull is the thing, the rebus word is the meaning of the śabda -- kunda 'fine gold' as the mleccha vaikharī with the underlying meaning-bearer sphoṭa: ‘The sphoṭa is simply the linguistic sign in its aspect of meaning-bearer (Bedeutungstrager).’(J. Brough, ‘Theories of General Linguistics in the Sanskit grammarians’, Transaction of the Philological Society, London, 1951, p..33f.). Hypertexts of Indus Script are vākyasphoṭa, or 'texts as meaining-bearers'. Thus, the simple key to Indus Script Cipher is the key provided by śabda of vaikharī stage yielding two homonyms: one the signifier (hypertext) and the other the signified (accounting ledger of wealth metalwork). kod. 'one horn'; kot.iyum [kot., kot.i_ neck] a wooden circle put round the neck of an animal (G.)kamarasa_la = waist-zone, waist-band, belt (Te.)kot.iyum [kot., kot.i_ neck] a wooden circle put round the neck of an animal (G.) [cf. the orthography of rings on the neck of one-horned young bull]. ko_d.iya, ko_d.e = young bull; ko_d.elu = plump young bull; ko_d.e = a. male as in: ko_d.e du_d.a = bull calf; young, youthful (Te.lex.) ko_d.iya, ko_d.e young bull; adj. male (e.g., ko_d.e du_d.a bull calf), young, youthful; ko_d.eka~_d.u a young man (Te.); ko_d.e_ bull (Kol.); khor.e male calf (Nk.); ko_d.i cow; ko_r.e young bullock (Kond.a); ko_d.i cow (Pe.); ku_d.i id. (Mand.); ko_d.i id., ox (Kui); ko_di cow (Kuwi); kajja ko_d.i bull; ko_d.i cow (Kuwi)(DEDR 2199). kor.a a boy, a young man (Santali) go_nde bull, ox (Ka.); go_da ox (Te.); konda_ bull (Kol.); ko_nda bullock (Kol.Nk.); bison (Pa.); ko_nde cow (Ga.); ko_nde_ bullock (Ga.); ko_nda_, ko_nda bullock, ox (Go.)(DEDR 2216). Rebus: kot. 'artisan's workshop'.(Kuwi)kod. = place where artisans work (G.lex.)kō̃da कोँद । कुलालादिकन्दुः f. a kiln; a potter's kiln (Rām. 1446; H. xi, 11); a brick-kiln (Śiv. 133); a lime-kiln. -bal -बल् । कुलालादिकन्दुस्थानम् m. the place where a kiln is erected, a brick or potter's kiln (Gr.Gr. 165)(Kashmiri) ko_nda bullock (Kol.Nk.); bison (Pa.)(DEDR 2216). Rebus: कोंद kōnda ‘engraver, lapidary setting or infixing gems’ (Marathi) Grierson takes the word कन्दुः (Skt.) to be a cognate of kaNDa 'pot' rebus: kaNDa 'fire altar' (Santali) S.Kalyanaraman Sarasvati Research Center September 8, 2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/109853898/Indian-Theories-of-Meaning-K-Kunjunni-Raja Indian Theories of Meaning - K Kunjunni Raja by granthabhandar on Scribd

Revue Roumaine de Philosophie , 2018

Abstract. In the Classical Indian theories of language, there are two fundamental directions of primary word meaning: the jātivāda, words as universal (jāti) propounded by Vājapyāyana, and the vyaktivāda, words express individual (vyakti) by Vyāḍi. The first import of the word is what encompasses the philosophical relevance, whereas the latest one refers rather to the grammatical aspects of word analysis such as word grammatical categories and its syntactical capability. The universal of a word is considered as the basis on which stands the individual and is the efficient cause (nimittakāraṇa) of the existence of a word. There is a constant balance between the two theories that go hand and hand one implying the other one. The 16th century Bhaṭṭoji Dikṣita reconciles the two theories in rather grammatical terms. Prior to him, the grammarian-philosopher Bhartṛhari, 5th AD century, builds on the inventory of all the possibilities of primary word meaning the unique theory of the universal of the universals. In this paper, I am attempting to survey the classical philosophical arguments of both the universal and individual word meaning theories with a close focus on Bhartṛhari’s postulation of the universal of universal as the link to the ultimate reality, seen as the brahman śabda-tattva, the core of his philosophy.

Journal of Indian Philosophy, vol. 39, issue 4-5, Special issue on 14th World Sanskrit Conference, pp. 571–587, 2011.

In studies of Indian theories of meaning it has been standard procedure to examine their relevance to the ontological issues between Brahmin realism about universals and Buddhist nominalism (or conceptualism). It is true that Kumārila makes efforts to secure the real existence of a generic property (jāti) denoted by a word by criticizing Dignāga, who declares that the real world consists of absolutely unique individuals (svalaks : an : a). The present paper, however, concentrates on the linguistic approaches Dignāga and Kumārila adopt to deny or to prove the existence of universals. It turns out that in spite of adopting contrasting approaches they equally distinguish between the semantic denotation of a word and its pragmatic reference to a thing in the physical world. From a purely semantic viewpoint, Dignāga considers the exclusion (apoha) of others by a word as the result of a conceptual accumulation of the sense-components accepted in the totality of worldly discourse. Among the three characteristics Dignāga held must be met by universals, Kumārila attaches special importance to their entire inherence in each individual (pratyekaparisamāpti / pratyekasamavāya). This is because he pragmatically pays attention to the use of a word in the discourse given in a particular context (prakaran : a) by analyzing a sentence into a topic and a comment.