Derivation of the Referential Meaning in Proverbs 1 - Propositional Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, University of Sebha, Sebha

ABSTRACTThe derivation of meaning in proverbs is a complex tristratal process which involves the derivation of the referential meaning of the proverb; its prototypical meaning, and finally its contextual meaning. In this first article in a series of articles dealing respectively with the derivation of 1. the referential (literal) meaning; 2. the prototypical meaning; and 3. the contextual meaning of the proverbs, an attempt has been made to look at the referential meaning of the literal and figurative proverbs from a ka:rmik linguistic perspective. In a Ka:mik Linguistic perspective, meaning is an emergent experiential awareness; it is born out of dispositional understanding mediated through the I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) networking of the formal, functional, and cognitive levels of the contextual (lingual) actional reality for the construction of dispositional reality. Such a shift in paradigm opens up a new way of deriving meaning of proverbs and language as language for individual experience (ka:rmik pragmatics or ka:rmatics) instead of language for communication (as semantics) or language in use for social communication (pragmatics).

Symbols used in the Article

I-I-I Network Node; Impacts on; Gives Rise to by Transformation;

Leads to in the Direction of the Arrow; Apparently Transforms into;

∧ Reflected on (like an adjunct) ∨ Reflected in (like a quality); Delink

intrer-categorially leads to as opposed to Intra-categorially leads to

a:nushangikally gives rise to; inherently qualified ; Through the Means of

Connecting Node in a Cyclic Network; Superimposed On is analyzed

● Heart or Nucleus of the Circular/Cyclic Network

The Individual Consciousness (soul or the ji:va)

The Triad of Qualities [sattva (luminosity or cognitivity) giving knowledge of activity; rajas (activity or analyticity) giving choice and pattern of activity by traits;

1 | P a g e

and tamas (inertia or substantivity) giving inertia or materiality of activity by va:sana:s] of Disposition.

Reversal of Order

I. IntroductionWhen proverbs are used, they are understood, misunderstood, or even not understood depending on the abilities of the participants in the discourse. When both the speaker and the hearer 1. know the referential, prototypical, and contextual meanings correctly and at the same time, 2. the performance (by the speaker) and the reception (by the hearers) are also successful, the proverb is understood; on the other hand, if any one of them is defective either in the knowledge of the meaning of the proverb or the performance/reception, the proverb will be misunderstood (i.e., the proverbial speech act fails); and finally, if the speaker is successful while the hearer is defective in the knowledge or reception of the proverb and vice versa, the proverb may not be understood at all (i.e., there will be no proverbial perlocutionary force on the hearer) and communication breaks down. For a successful encoding or decoding of a proverb, the following conditions are necessary.

1. The meaning of the proverb as an expression (sentence or phrase)-in-context (an expression that was formed by its use in a context but now a potential utterance, but not an actual utterance as opposed to a sentence- in- vacuo which is not so formed) should be clear to both the speaker and the hearer.

2. The speaker should have the proverbial competence to perform the utterance of the proverb appropriately in an actual world and performed it accordingly. 3. The hearer should have the proverbial inference (decoding) ability and inferred it accordingly.

If any of the abilities are lacking in the participants, the use of the proverb will be a failure, and if all of them are present, it will be a successful performance. Therefore, it is essential to know why and how proverbs mean what they mean when and where and what is the process of their use and inference.

In this first article dealing with the derivation of meaning in proverbs, how the referential meaning or the literal meaning of a proverb is computed is analyzed from a formal linguistic perspective which is later integrated into its analysis of the prototypical meaning and contextual meaning of the proverbs.

II. Literature ReviewA large volume of literature is available on the derivation of meaning in proverbs (see Mieder: 1982, 90, 93 for extensive references). However, their meaning is not derived from a tristratal perspective as in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Paradigm. In the general literature on semantics and pragmatics, proverbs as a special topic have not been studied extensively. For example, in Lyons (1979 a, b), Vanderveken (1990, 91), and Searle (1969, 79 a, b) which are seminal works on semantics and pragmatics, no specific chapters are allocated to discuss the meaning proverbs as a genre. Leech (1983) examines and analyses meaning in a Gricean perspective and extends it to his own means-ends model by adapting the Hallidayan metafunctions of language (interpersonal, ideational, and textual). In Bhuvaneswar (2000 a-d), an attempt has been made to study the semantics of proverbs from a formal linguistic perspective and integrate it into the ka:rmik linguistic perspective of considering meaning as dispositional, experiential (ka:rmik) meaning. Such a motivation is further supported by proverbial discourse analysis (Bhuvaneswar 1998, 99, 2010) and general discourse analysis (Schiffrin 1994; Berry 1981 a, b, c). In this paradigm, the meaning of proverbs is derived from their referential, prototypical, and contextual meaning perspectives and integrated into a unified experiential meaning of the proverb used in a context in a cause-means-effect analysis. In such a perspective, meaning is not complete unless and otherwise all the formal, functional, and cognitive planes as well as the cognitive, socioculturalspiritual, and contextual actional realities of the concerned lingual action (proverbial action) are integrated into a unified experiential meaning. The formal, functional, and cognitive linguistic models are atomic and therefore inadequate to provide such a description. In a Ka:mik Linguistic perspective, meaning is an emergent (w)holistic experiential awareness; it is born out of dispositional understanding mediated through the I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) networking of the formal, functional, and semantic levels of the contextual (lingual) actional reality for the construction of dispositional reality. In such a process, meaning is dispositionally generated, specified, directed, and materialized through its systematic and holorchical mediation through the cognitive and socioculturalspiritual realities in its context of lingual action. Hence, the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm integrates all these planes into a unified framework and therefore it is claimed that it is better suited to derive the meaning in a single framework.

III. Derivation of the Referential Meaning in Proverbs: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach

A. Propositional Meaning in Proverbs: Its DerivationProverbs have different meanings. First, as an expression (a phrase, a sentence, or even more than one sentence including Wellerisms), it has a

referential (literal) meaning. A literal meaning is the expressional meaning derived from the collective literary meaning of all the words in the expression. A literary meaning is derived not only from literal proverbs such as Honesty is the best policy; It is easier to forgive than forget; Reason succeeds where force fails; etc. but also figurative proverbs such as Faraway cows have long horns; A dead dog never bites; Sleeping cats catch no mice; etc. Let us take the following examples for an illustration of their literal meaning.

1 Set: Literal Proverbs i. Honesty is the best policy. ii. A little learning is a dangerous thing. iii. That must be true which all men say? iv. When in doubt, leave it out. v. Better late than never.

In Set 1, the literal meaning of the sentences is the sentence-in-context meaning of the proverb in a possible world (because the proverb is not yet used in a real world). For example, A little learning is a dangerous thing has the meaning with the proposition P that a little learning is a dangerous thing as an assertion. This is its literal or referential meaning. When the proverb is used as an utterance, for example, in the following Indian English conversation that took place between two brothers (A: elder; B: younger) in a real world– A injured his leg badly while taking his moped up the footsteps into the house and got a bandage from an allopath; after five days he took a dose of Natrum Mur 200 on his own:

A: I thought a higher dose of Natrum Mur will heal my bruise quickly, but now, all over my body, I got black pigmentation.

B: A little learning is a dangerous thing. Consult a qualified homeopath immediately. It is not good to take medicines without proper knowledge.

A little learning is a dangerous thing means exactly that much with reference to the use of medicines, i.e., an incomplete knowledge (about homoeopathic medicines) is dangerous as dispositionally cognized by the speaker irrespective of its truth value -- the user might or might not have used the medicine according to the science of homoeopathy -- because it may not be adequate enough to treat an illness and therefore such an inadequate knowledge may lead to problems instead of solving the problem; hence, it is prohibited. To put it technically, the literal meaning of the proverb is the same as the utterance meaning of the same proverb – of course, it is contextually extended to imply knowledge about homoeopathic medicines, giving its third level meaning which is the contextual meaning –

the meaning in its context of use. Proverbs such as these whose literal (sentence or referential) meaning and utterance meaning are the same are called direct (as opposed to indirect) proverbial speech acts. This meaning is captured in the following equation (1):

(1) Proverbial Meaning :Literal (Referential or Sentence) Meaning Utterance Meaning

Proverb Meaning

2 Set: Figurative ProverbsThere are many types of proverbs which contain figures of speech such as simile, hyperbole, paradox, metaphor, etc. A few examples are discussed below to arrive at a generalization about the meaning in figurative proverbs.

2.1. Similaic Proverbs i. News spreads like wild fire. ii. Calumny is like coal – it either burns you or besmirches you. iii. Money, like promises, is easier made than kept. iv. Like mother, like daughter. v. Disgraces are like cherries: one draws another.

In 2.1. Similaic Proverbs, we have examples of proverbs whose literal (sentence or referential) meaning is dependent on the figurative meaning of the sentence. For example, the sentence-in-context meaning of the proverb News spreads like wild fire is first, dependent on the figurative meaning (simile) used in the proverb by implicature from the general and cultural knowledge at the internal structural level. Like wild fire is the figure of speech (simile) used in the proverb. That characteristic property which is culturally associated with wild fire, namely, its spreading rapidly is first attributed to wild fire – this property is generally selected out of a number of other properties from its dispositional general cognition as a common and familiar property which sticks out prominently (as salient). Second, this characteristic property is transferred into the simile; and finally, the sentence is endowed with that meaning. It is shown in the following equation (2) in three stages.

(2) Proverb Meaning of News spreads like wild fire: Stage I a. News spreads [like wild fire] S V A (Prepositional Phrase of Manner)

b. News spreads [like wild fire spreads]

c. Wild fire spreads …. How? Very rapidly

Stage IIAdding this dispositionally chosen characteristic as a culturally chosen characteristic into the sentence, we get:

d. News spreads like wild fire spreads very rapidly.

Stage IIINow if we delete the Adverbial like wild fire and retain the characteristic property very rapidly (instantaneously), we get:

e. News spreads very rapidly.

[This is its Prototypical Meaning, the second higher level meaning, which is approximately the paraphrased meaning.]

This is the meaning by paraphrase. But the hearer does not understand the proverb with this paraphrased meaning; he understands the proverb to mean this (2e) via the image but not independently of the image. Had the paraphrased meaning only is meant, then the proverb would not have been coined to be so with the image by violating the Gricean Maxims of Quantity (stating more than what is required by giving the additional information through the simile ‘like wild fire’) and Manner (by not being brief; by being obscure). The very fact that there is an image which violates the Cooperative Principle proves that it has a function to serve – this function here is either a function of expressing the abstract meaning (of spreading so quickly) by a concrete example as wild fire (does) for which there is no equivalent word; or a function of creating aesthetic appeal by evoking a powerful image of wild fire. So as this paraphrased meaning is derived, it is derived a:nushangikally (the effect inheriting the cause like the pot inheriting the clay) via the image in three stages as follows: 1 2 (Literal or Referential Meaning)f. News spreads like wild fire News spreads like wild fire which

spreads very rapidly (+News spreads like wild fire) 3 (Prototypical Meaning)

News spreads very rapidly [+ like wild fire spreads very rapidly + (like wild fire)]

Therefore, if this proverb is used in a real world, its utterance meaning has to be derived via its figurative meaning, if there is any such meaning. Most importantly, this figurative meaning should be pro-culturally derived; if not, its appropriate meaning will not be arrived at. For example, wild fire also destroys the flora and the fauna in the wild (jungle or bush land) and so the meaning can as well be News spreads like wild fire which ruins many people around the hearers of the news which is not the intended meaning of the proverb. Just like a literal proverb, the meaning of the proverb is determined from the meaning of the words collectively but pro-culturally

through salience. That means that the literal (referential) meaning in proverbs is simply not literal but socioculturalspiritually literal.

In a similar way, in the proverb More like the devil than St. Laurence, unless and otherwise we know what characteristics are culturally bestowed on devil and St. Laurence, we will not be able to construct the meaning of the proverb as a sentence-in-context in a possible world. Since proverbs are thoroughly culture bound, meaning in proverbs is intrinsically culture specific and a lack of cultural knowledge causes a failure in understanding the meaning of the proverb. Examples such as the ones given above are relatively simple because of the familiarity of the words or concepts, but some proverbs are very difficult to understand in view of the cultural obscurity of the proposition in the proverb. Similaic proverbs such as As wise as Waltham’s calf in English or Parama:nandayya sishyulu la:ga ‘Like Parama:nandayya’s disciples’ in Telugu are difficult proverbs in the sense that they require more in depth knowledge of the culture in a society. Even if we know the cultural referents such as Waltham or Parama:nandayya, there is no guarantee that the meaning can be correctly derived. For example, one may know about Waltham but that does not give us any clue about the proverb; unless we know that his calf ran a long distance to drink milk from a bull and came back in vain, we will not be in a position to derive its meaning. In a similar way, even if we know about Parama:nandayya (who is a learned scholar) but not about his disciples (who always behaved stupidly), we will not be able to understand the proverb meaning. Therefore, not only the salient meaning chosen by the culture but also the knowledge of the legends associated with the words to arrive at the salient meaning is required to calculate the implicature correctly.

(3a) Similaic Proverb Meaning: Literal Meaning Similaic Meaning (+ Literal Meaning)

Expanded Similaic Meaning (+ Similaic Meaning + Literal Meaning)

In the case of similaic proverbs, the same principle of comparison is used to clarify and elaborate the social practice which can be categorially instantiated in the conduct of the socioculturalspiritual living of the proverb community and facilitate the appropriate use of the proverb to construct the similaic dispositional (ka:rmik) reality of the categorial social practice.

(3b) Simile - Clarification and Elaboration of the Social Practice - Clarified and Elaborated Prototypical Practice

2.2: Hyperbolical Proverbs i. The buzz of a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar. ii. Deviate an inch, lose a thousand miles. iii. With seven nurses a child will be without eyes. iv. The coward dies many times.

v. Don’t make a mountain of a molehill.

The referential meaning of these hyperbolical proverbs is simply the meaning of the words taken collectively. For example, the proverb Deviate an inch, lose a thousand miles means the P that You deviate an inch, you lose a thousand miles; the proverb The coward dies many times means the P that The coward dies many times; and so on. The hyperbole is a part of the referential meaning a:nushangikally inherited from the referential meaning.

(4a) Proverb Meaning: Literal Meaning Hyperbolical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)

Expanded Hyperbolical Meaning [+Hyperbolical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)]

In the case of hyperbolical proverbs, the same principle of overstatement to attract the attention by rousing the interest of the hearer is used as pointed out by Leech (1983: 145); here, the maxim of quality (truth value) is violated to achieve the effect; alternatively, it is also used to highlight the social practice by increasing the prominence through the means of the hyperbole – the hyperbole is used as a means to achieve the goal of highlighting the social practice; the second use seems to be more applicable in the formation of proverbs:

(4b) Hyperbole – Interest Arousal – Highlighted Prototypical Social Practice

However, the hyperbole is on the social practice which can be categorially instantiated in the conduct of the socioculturalspiritual living of the proverb community and facilitate the appropriate use of the proverb to construct the hyperbolical dispositional (ka:rmik) reality of the categorial social practice.

In this set, we also have sentences which are hyperbolical on the one hand and metaphorical on the other hand. All of them taken literally do not fit the world. Let us take an example. In the first sentence of The buzz of a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar, a buzz (a property of sound) has no property of drowning (a property of a liquid); second, an ocean cannot roar, since roaring is a quality of an animate object such as an animal like a lion; third, the sound made by the buzz of a mosquito is many, many decibels less than that of the sound of an ocean’s wave (breaking on the shore). All these states of affairs in the world do not fit with the sentence meaning. Yet, this is a sentence-in-context in addition to a sentence in vacuo. Then, how is the meaning derived by a speaker to mean “something” and how does the hearer decode the “something”. Surely, there must be a process by which the encoding should correspond with decoding and vice versa. In order to do so, a hearer must first of all know the use of figurative language whose conventions are equally shared by any member of the proverb community without which successful communication fails. Once he

understands this convention, he tries to derive the meaning either algorithmically (by one by one in a linear process, if he has no thorough knowledge about the proverb), or heuristically (by trial and error, if he has a partial knowledge of the proverb), or automatically (by correct application, if he has complete knowledge about the proverb) – this is a very important cognitive processing technique.

In the case of this proverb, the hearer has to get the meaning of the proverb in three successive stages of computation of the: 1. referential meaning; 2. figurative meaning; and 3. combined meaning by integration and binding.

In the first stage, the referential meaning of the proverb is interpreted and cognized to be the collective meaning of all the words in the sentence form. That is to say that the referential meaning of the proverb is the propositional meaning P that The buzz of a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar as an assertion.

As soon as he arrives at the propositional meaning P that The buzz of a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar as an assertion, he realizes that there is no fit between the state of affairs given in the sentence and the real world but the sentence cannot be wrong since the speaker is following the Cooperative Principle (CP) of Grice. Therefore, he interprets the sentence as a proverb and the literal meaning as a figurative meaning based on the CP – to do so he has the knowledge of such a linguistic convention in the society – and comes to the intuitive understanding that it is a hyperbolical assertion since the truth condition of the assertion is not satisfied: The buzz of a mosquito cannot drown out the ocean’s roar. Again, a buzz cannot drown a roar since sound cannot have the property of drowning and hence it should be metaphorical (synaesthesia). The hearer unpacks the metaphorical meaning and paraphrases it as equivalent to “make… inaudible”/ “suppresses”: The buzz of a mosquito can make the ocean’s roar inaudible. Finally, he combines the meataphorical and hyperbolical meaning and integrates them into the literal meaning as shown below.

(4c) Proverb Meaning: Literal Meaning Hyperbolical Meaning (+ Literal Meaning)

Metaphorical Meaning (+ Literal Meaning + Hyperbolical Meaning) Expanded Figurative Meaning [+Metaphorical Meaning +

Hyperbolical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)] In formal linguistic analysis, there is a separation between literal and figurative meanings since it is atomic in its approach but in ka:rmik linguistics, they are not separated but interconnected-interrelated-interdependent since it is a holistic approach: when the proverb The buzz of a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar is used, it means all the

literal, figurative, and the combined meanings together as a whole in a single unit called the cogneme but not separately or in parallel. Let us call this the Wholistic Meaning to distinguish it from the holistic meaning. What is more, this cogneme is open-ended and expands, integrates, and binds the referential into the prototypical into the contextual meaning also in it as it is used in an exchange in a context and then leads to the experience of the results of action as the Experiential Meaning. This experiential meaning is derived as the Ka:rmik Meaning through Language as a Means. From this ka:rmik meaning, proverbial ka:rmik reality is constructed when a proverb is used in an exchange/discourse; and when they are remembered by individuals, or stored in the collective memory of a proverb community, or recorded in books, they are done so as proverbial-ka:rmik-reality-realizing-linguistic-means. This is with reference to the use of language as proverbs for the construction of (proverbial) ka:rmik reality.

These concepts are captured succinctly in equations as follows: (4d) Typification of Meaning:

Literal Meaning / Figurative Meaning Literary Meaning (+ Figurative Meaning) Atomic Meaning Holistic Meaning

Literal as the Figurative as the Combined Meaning as a CognemeWholistic Meaning (Ka:rmik Meaning)

OR

Literal Meaning ●

Figurative Meaning Combined Meaning

Cogneme

Experiential Meaning Ka:rmik Meaning

Legend: Disposition; ● Consciousness; gives rise to by transformation; leads to; reciprocally leads to; inter-categorially leads to; ● Dispositionally-Qualified- Consciousness (D.Q.E.)

(4e) Meaning of a Proverb:

i. Atomic Meaning:a. Literal Meaning / Figurative Meaning

b. Referential Meaning / Prototypical Meaning / Contextual Meaning

ii. Holistic Meaning: a. Literal Meaning + Figurative Meaning

b. [Referential Meaning + Prototypical Meaning + Contextual Meaning]

iii. Wholistic Meaning (= Ka:rmik Meaning)a. Literal Meaning as Figurative Meaning as Combined Meaning as a

Cognemeb. [Referential Meaning as Prototypical Meaning as Contextual

Meaning as a Cogneme = Experiential Meaning]

(4f)

[Ka:rmik Impulsion (Experiential)] [Dispositional Impulsion (Choice of Action)

Cognitive Impulsion (Deliberation of Action) Conceptual Impulsion (Binding of Action)

Actional Impulsion (for Materialization of Action): Will] (gives rise to)

Action (Mental/Vocal (Proverbial)/Physical)[Karma is an experiential principle of cause-effect reality in KLT and is realized through disposition (svabha:vam) which gives rise to choice of activity, impressionality of activity (va:sana:s) which gives rise to the

pattern of the concerned activity, and experientiality of activity (bho:gam) which gives rise to the ultimate experience of action.]

(4g)

Action (Proverbial Utterance) [Deliberation of Proverbial Meaning Interpretation Experience of the Proverbial

Meaning] Realization of Ka:rmik Meaning

(5)a. Consciousness (C) ∧ Karma (K) K – Qualified - C.

OR ● ∧ K K ●

b. K – Qualified - C ∧ Disposition (D) C – Qualified - D. OR K ● ∧ ●

c. C.Q.D. ∧ Context Desire Effort Differentiated Awareness Conception

[d. Trait ∨ Knolwledge ∨ Va:sana Conception]

[Legend : ∧ Reflected on (like an adjunct) ∨ Reflected in (like a quality)]

e. Conception:Objectification (This and That - Cognition) Classification (So

and So - System / Paradigm) Qualification (Such and Such - Structure)

(see the conceptual axis graph for a graphic representation of Conception in Bhuvaneswar 2009 b)

It has been shown here once again to represent the Objectification-Classification-Qualification process

P E A M R E CONCEPT CLASSIFICATION A N D G OBJECTIFICATION I O G C M S Y N T A G M Disposition QUALIFICATION

Graph 1: The Triaxial Graph of Conceptual Process in Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory (KLT)

Consciousness is the unchangeable substratum of Pure Awareness (Static Consciousness) and gives rise to Pure Cognition (Static Cognition). When it is charged with Karma, it becomes Karma-Qualified-Consciousness/Awareness/Cognition and gives rise to Disposition. Again, when Consciousness is charged with Disposition, it becomes Disposition-Qualified-Consciousness and gives rise to Disposition-Qualified- Awareness/Cognition. Conception of an Object/State of Being/Action is an apparent transformation of the Karma-Qualified-Cognition (K.Q.Cog.) which is the Ultimate Cause into Dispositional- Qualified-Cognition (D.Q.Cog) which is the Immediate Cause into the cognition of this and that as so and so in such and such a manner as the conception (which is the means) into the experiential cognition (which is the effect). The K.Q.Cog is the invisible cause of D.Q.Cog. which is

inferential. D.Q.Cog. remains as it is like light but projects a conception on it by apparently transforming the sides of the triangle of disposition into a star which can have many rays and so twinkles (1…n) depending upon the nature of conception that gives rise to the cogneme.

Basically, there are three components to disposition (Traits-Knowledge-Va:sana) and Traits are further divided into the three qualities of Sattva (Cognitivity or Luminosity) -Rajas (activity)-Tamas (Inertia). In equilibrium, all these three qualities are static and do not create any disturbance in the awareness of the Dispositionally-Qualified-Consciousness. To explain it further, the state of cognition is static and remains inactive and therefore remains as the basic cognition without any projections. Once the qualities get disturbed by the impact of knowledge gained from sensory perception in the immediate context/or previous experience (memory and va:sana:s), they act upon the mind and stir the cognition into activity and thus make it kinetic. Consequently, there will be a change in the state of rest of cognition giving rise to an apparent transformation of blank cognition (which is like a rock) into a cognition of conception of this and that as so and so in such and such a manner (which is like the figure to be sculptured on the rock) under the influence of disposition which chooses the specific figure like the coloured crystals in a kaleidoscope producing different colours under their influence. Conceptualization is thus dispositionally generated, specified, directed and materialized. Finally, the concept is formed to be so and the state of cognition is synoptic (which is like the finished sculpture). Even though Disposition has no power of cognition, by virtue of being qualified by Consciousness, it springs into action and generates the specific cognition.

There is an interesting Principle of Reversal of Order in cognition also. First, Disposition qualifies Consciousness to make it Dispositionally-qualified-Consciousness (DQC); second, by a reversal of order, Consciousness qualifies Disposition to make it Consciousness- qualified –Disposition (CQD); third, this CQD is the one that produces phenomenal conceptualization and its cognition.

(5f) D + C DQC CQD Dispositional Conceptualization of Lingual Action

The transformation from static-to-kinetic-to-synoptic cognition is generally automatic in casual conversation and fast writing but can be heuristic or algorithmic in cultivated or contemplative or creative thinking. After the conceptualization of the action, it is performed to get the desire fulfilled and eventually the speaker experiences the result of the action as experiential meaning as ka:rmik meaning, in this case, as proverbial-action-experience-meaning as proverbial ka:rmik meaning. As he experiences the meaning, the state of cognition is experiential and the awareness is experiential

awareness (i.e., experience resulting from awareness and not awareness for experience).

(5g:1 and 2) Evolution of Cognition:

1. ● ● Static Dispositional Kinetic Dispositional Synoptic Dispsoitional Cognition Conception Concept

Experiential Dispositional (Ka:rmik) Concept Experiential Cognition

Experience of Action (Experiential Awareness).

2. Causal Cognition of Action Dispositional Cognition of Action

Cognition of Action Experiential Cognition of Action

[ intrer-categorially leads to as opposed to (Intra-categorially) leads to]

2. 3: Parodoxical Proverbs i. What is hard to bear is sweet to remember. ii. The greatest hate comes from the greatest love. iii. So near and yet so far. iv. Many a good cow has a bad calf. v. He that speaks ill of the mare will buy her. vi. Life is hard by the yard, but by the inch, life’s a cinch. vii. The only way to save an hour is spend it wisely. viii. Least said, soonest mended. ix. A good offence is the best defence.

As observed in the case of the hyperbolical proverbs, the referential meaning is simply the meaning of the words taken collectively. For example, the proverb What is hard to bear is sweet to remember means the proposition P that What is hard to bear is sweet to remember; and so on in the case of other proverbs also. The paradox is a part of the referential meaning a:nushangikally inherited from the referential meaning.

……..

(6) Proverb Meaning: Literal Meaning Paradoxical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)

Expanded Paradoxical Meaning [+Paradoxical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)]

The paradoxical meaning is derived by a socioculturalspiritual implicature of the shared knowledge of the proverb community. Otherwise, a proverb like A good offence is the best defence becomes illocutionarily impossible. The assertion of an offence implies an attack and not defence. Therefore, offence cannot be defence. Consequently, it is illogical. However, if it is understood that the meaning has a presupposition: That defending oneself is best accomplished by attacking, the meaning becomes logical. By violating the Maxim of Quality via the socioculturalspiritual knowledge of the proverb community and embedding the directly paradoxical pair of words such as hate and love, good and bad, save and spend, etc., or indirectly paradoxical practices such as speak ill and buy, least said and soonest mended, etc., the concerned social practice is highlighted by increasing the prominence through the means of the paradox – the paradox is used as a means to achieve the goal of highlighting the social practice; alternatively, as explained in the case of the hyperbolical proverbs, paradox is used to attract the attention of the hearer by rousing his interest. The second function of aesthetic appeal seems to be complementary to the first function of highlighting the social practice in the formation of proverbs. From a synoptic perspective, different functions are interconnected-interrelated-interdependent and they may be linear, parallel, or radial.

2. 4: Metaphorical Proverbs 2.4.1: Literal Practices as Metaphorical Proverbs i. Do not look a gift horse in the mouth. ii. An early bird catches the worm. iii. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. iv. You scratch my back; I scratch your back. 2.4.2: Metaphorical Words in Proverbs i. What is the good of a fair apple if it has a worm in its heart? ii. Don’t monkey with the bandwagon if you cannot play the horn. iii. If the beard were all, the goat might preach. iv. Every dog is a lion at home.In the 2.4 Set, we have the so-called metaphorical proverbs which are predominant in the proverbial genre. Surprisingly, most of these proverbs in vacuo cannot be considered metaphorical in the first instance. For example, Do not look a gift horse in the mouth simply means a directive to not look a gift horse in the mouth; An early bird catches the worm means an assertion stating a belief that P (where P= that an early bird catches the worm); and What is the good of a fair apple if it has a worm in its heart? is a rhetorical question with a negative assertion that P (where P= if it has a

worm in its heart). These sentences even as sentences- in – contexts in a possible world need not necessarily be proverbs. For example, in the context of a possible world, where one presents a horse to another – for instance as I was presented horses by the Shehu of Borno, the Waziri of Borno, and the Governor of Borno, Nigeria – and the receiver of the gift looks into the mouth – it is a sociocultural practice to examine the teeth of a horse to determine its age and thus assess its value: the younger the horse, the better its value - the third person witnessing the action may say this sentence: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. [In the mouth is a synecdoche for teeth – this use is also not metaphorical.

[Other simple examples are the common social animal practices in proverbs such as You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink; A scary horse needs a stout bridle; A boisterous horse requires a boisterous bridle (British). These proverbs have a real animal social practice as their propositional content and the proverbs are literal in their content but turned metaphorical in their application. In the case of You scratch my back; I scratch your back, it is a human social practice.]

In such a context of use in a possible world, the utterance need not have the force of a proverb if the speaker intended the utterance only as literal advice or command, according to the custom. In such a case it means the same as a proverb but not in the same manner. The meaning of the utterance is not derived via the frozen cultural prototypical illocutionary force of the meaning but as an individual opinion following the politeness principle. Such utterances cannot be used metaphorically in other contexts – they are not sortally incorrect. For example, one cannot say this sentence when you receive a pen as a gift; if you say it, it is understood as a proverb via the prototypical meaning. In other words all such utterances need not be proverbs even though all proverbs can be used in such contexts exactly with the same wording. Hence there is an asymmetric relationship between such utterances and proverbs. That is why, a sentence like Don’t stare (at) a guest in the house is not a proverb even though it is also a similar piece of cultural advice in a similar syntactic structure.

When such a use is taken as a categorial practice and is made the exemplar of such a social practice of condemning the evaluation of gifts as impolite, it gains the status of a prototypical practice, consequently gaining a new meaning that contains the core features of the categorial practice without the image-meaning.

[In literal proverbs, there is no image-meaning and therefore the referential meaning is equal to the prototypical meaning:

(7) Literal Proverbs: Referential Meaning = Prototypical meaning.]

Here, the status of the same practice is apparently transformed by superimposition (vivartam by adhya:sa) from an instance of an individual practice to an instance of a categorial practice by looking at it as a member

of such similar categories of practices to an instance of a prototypical practice by gradual evolution (karma srushti) in a linear, temporal sequence. In terms of cognition, an expressed meaning in the text of the proverb embodying the individual practice evolves into a prototypical meaning embodying an evolved meaning which when used in a context becomes the contextual meaning embodying an emergent meaning.

(8) a. Individual Practice Categorial Practice Looking at the teeth of horse gifted Looking at the teeth

of a horse gifted Prototypical Practice

Looking at the contents of a present

b. Referential Meaning Categorial Meaning

Don’t look at the teeth of a gift horse Don’t look at the teeth of a gift horse

Prototypical Meaning Don’t evaluate the contents of a present

c. Expressed Meaning Evolved Meaning Emergent Meaning.

OF a social practice THROUGH social practices IN a contextual social practice (Referential Meaning) (Prototypical Meaning) (Contextual Meaning)

If the same sentence Do not look a gift horse in the mouth is considered a sentence in a context in a possible world situation, other than the original context of the proverb (i.e., a situation in which one looks into the mouth of a gift horse), it will be a proverb in that context with that semantic interpretation. That is to say that this utterance will be considered a cultural practice and its referential meaning as such will be extended to derive its prototypical meaning ‘that it is not good manners to evaluate a gift in terms of its worth’ and furthermore, it will be superimposed on the categorial action in the context to derive its final contextual meaning. Therefore, it is a negative condition that proverbs used in their original context (from which the proverb took off) need not be proverbial:

(9) a. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents a horse)B: NV (looks in the mouth and checks the teeth)

C: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. [literal advice in the form of a sortally correct sentence as not a proverb;

with a falling intonation on ‘in the mouth]

b. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents an ordinary horse) B: How much is this? C: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

[a sortally incorrect sentence as metaphorical advice as a proverb]

c. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents an ordinary shirt) B: How much is this? C: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

[a proverb as metaphorical advice]

d. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents a horse)B: NV (looks in the mouth and checks the teeth)

C: ‘Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’. [a sortally incorrect sentence citation of a proverb; with a rising intonation

starting from ‘Don’t……’]

In (9a), the sentence-in-context as an utterance is not a proverb because it had not yet become a proverb by cultural authorization whereas in (9d), the already formed proverb is used in the context as an utterance by citation to contextually mean the prototypical meaning but not merely the referential meaning and so it can be considered a proverb.

The vivartam (apparent transformation) of an individual practice into a categorial practice is by gradual evolution (krama srushti); it is generally but not necessarily achieved when an individual uses this practice as a means to interpret an unfamiliar (known to the society but not familiar) / unknown (not yet discovered) /abstract practice or phenomenon by using it as a simile. Later on, as this comparison/contrast is used and polished by many individuals during the course of time and gains currency as a popular illustration of the practice, it achieves the status of a standard example and becomes salient. In the mean time, all other practices which are similar to this practice are categorized as belonging to a class or group. By this categorization, it becomes a categorial practice and again as a salient practice, it is chosen as the exemplar par excellence of all other practices which are classed with this practice. Hence, it becomes a prototypical practice for all the other categorial practices by gradual evolution.

This is an interesting Process of Reversal of Order (indicated by / ) by the Principle of Individual – Contextual - Collective Standardization observed in many ka:rmik linguistic processes. It offers an important counter-evidence to the Innateness Hypothesis of Chomsky or Language as Social Action of Halliday. First, an action is performed by a dispositional choice; second, it is dispositionally used to interpret other similar practices that are obtained in the conduct of living of the proverb community in which it is used; third, as it is used to do so, all such similar practices are grouped together as a class or category; and finally, this particular practice, by

virtue of being used as a means to interpret other similar practices, becomes prominent or salient and is dispositionally chosen to interpret and represent all other such similar practices that may occur in future. Salience of this practice emerged out of its popular dispositional choice and not out of its intrinsic value – for example, gold is still salient in our modern cultures even though platinum is a nobler metal than gold in the periodic table; so also A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is salient whereas A pig in the pen is worth two in the market is not in the English proverb community; green in Distant hills are green in English is salient but not in Telugu where it is soft: Du:rapu (far away) kondalu (hills) nunupu (soft) ‘Distant hills are soft’. In other words, first it is dispositionally categorized, and next it is dispositionally used to categorize bringing about a reversal in its use:

(10) a. Action Categorial Action Salient Action Prototypical Action

b. Action Prototypical Action Categorial Action

An important point to note is the way in which proverbs are formed as language. The Principles of Awareness, Cognition, Analyticity, Memory, and Vocalization, and Disposition, Action and its Experience are all innate to every human being. That is why we find them universally across all places, and races governed by the Universal Sciences of Action (physics, chemistry, and mathematics), Living (physiology, psychology, cognitive science, and medicine), and Lingual Action (linguistics) – see Bhuvaneswar 2009 a for a detailed explanation of these concepts. However, there is no universal language but many languages in practice (Samskrit, Hebrew, Telugu, Hixkaryana, etc). The hardware for production of languages is genetic but the software of a language is dispositionally created in a context of living. Just as human beings have developed many cultures, and religions, so also many languages must have been developed by them according to these Universal Sciences of Action, Living, and Lingual Action. We can see this kind of evolution from a historical study of various language phenomena such as the change in the syntactic typology of English from SOV to SVO; loss of cases; semantic changes; new word –formation processes, etc. as well as the emergence of new languages from their old predecessors.

2.4.3. Motivation of Metaphoricity in Proverbs

a. Principle of Least Effort in Formation of a ProverbOne way to motivate the formation of metaphorical proverbs is through cognitive processing patterns: Human beings tend to give preference to simplicity over complexity in cognitive processing by the Principle of Least Effort, in the absence of an easily available concept. Here, the prototype can

be cognized with effort but the users are lazy to do so. For example, an already available social practice can be easily extended to other social practices for categorization by the Principle of Productive Extension of Variables (PEV) in which an already existing variable (obtained by ECV) is taken as the base and modified either at the paradigmatic or syntagmatic levels by dispositional creativity. For example, in affixation, the paradigm is shifted from, say, prefixation to suffixation or circumfixation in word-formation; in semantics, the meaning of an existing word is extended to cover other meanings leading to polysemy (e.g., party having many meanings: tea-party; congress party); similarly, a stitch in time saves nine is extended to be metaphorical and made a prototype. This principle can be overruled in favour of other principles such as the Principles of Aesthetic/Functional/Structural Appeals according to the dispositionality of the users: as the workman, so is his work.

b. Complexity in PrototypicalizationAnother way to motivate the formation of proverbs is through the complexity in categorization and derivation of a prototype:

i. The concerned prototypical practice is vague and invisible to naked cognition and requires microscopic cognition through the instrumentality of a metaphorical social practice and hence difficult to prototypicalize by paraphrase; (e.g., Don’t expect three legs on a cat when you know he has four; Revenge is like biting a dog because he bit you; as wise as Waltham’s calf). In such formations, the derivation of the prototypical meaning requires effort and the image is generally a complex category prototype;

ii. so also, sometimes, the complex category prototype image forms an integral part of the meaning and so requires the metaphor to capture that shade of meaning precisely; in addition, the range, depth, and variety of meaning is sometimes enhanced by the metaphor (e.g., He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword; An eye for an eye turns the whole world blind; Like a fish out of water);

iii. some other times, the aesthetic appeal of the image rules supreme and decides the metaphorical choice (e.g., A forgotten switch may cause a wreck; One swine recognizes another; Who yaps like a dog will be beaten like a dog). In addition, such proverbs reduce the premium on encoding and decoding the meaning owing to the salience of the image – culturally well-known and frequently recurring images are easily understood and hence reduce the premium on decoding the meaning. Here, the image may be a simple or complex category prototype.

Aesthetic appeal plays a very crucial role in the creation of proverb potential expressions in literary texts. In view of their aesthetic appeal and relevance to be prototypes to daily experiences – which are not

categorized under prototypes – they become proverbs in due course of time. Again, there is a dispositional choice by the people in making them proverbs: Disposition always rules supreme.

c. Ease in the Computation of MeaningIt is easier to compute the contextual meaning of a categorial practice which may be abstract/new/unfamiliar through a concrete/known/familiar practice embodied in the metaphor. The computation is from category to category via the already present attributes rather than the abstract meaning in the prototype where the concrete attributes are not present. This is a pragmatic advantage for both the hearer and the speaker: the speaker encodes the new contextual meaning easily because he knows it already through another category and so does the hearer decode it. For example, in the following Telugu conversation between my mother Mrs. Kantamani and me about the decoration of Sri Ka:lima:tha in Her Temple in our town Narsapur, Andhra Pradesh, India, the meaning is quickly and evocatively captured through the image of a decorated doll and an undressed doll in the proverb:

(11) A : puvvulu ti:se:ste:, vigraham andamga le:du.‘(If you) remove(ing) the flowers, the idol is unattractive’

B : avunu, undade:miti? Manishi ku:da: ante: alanka:ram So will it not be ? Even a man (is) also like that, if the

decoration is tise:ste: removed.

Anni: pedite: bommakka, anni: tiste: timmakka. (If you) put(ting) all Sister Doll, removing all Sister Thimma. ‘If put everything, Bommakka; if removed everything, Thimmakka’

[Bommakka is a prototype of a beautiful well-dressed country lass; and Thimmakka another prototype of an ill-looking country wench]

Some proverbs on the contrary – unlike metaphorical proverbs - can be used only in restricted contexts when they refer to a particular subject only. A few examples are given below.

3 Set: Restricted (Subject Specific) Proverbs i. Women are saints in church, angels in the street, devils in the kitchen, and apes in bed. ii. Good coffee should be black as sin, strong as the devil, and hot as hell. iii. A woman’s place is in the house. iv. Don’t spend all your money in one place.

v. A good surgeon must have an eagle’s eye, a lion’s heart, and a lady’s hand.

Such proverbs as mentioned above are restricted in their application to specific subjects: women, coffee, money, surgeon, etc. Their range is restricted only to those subjects and not others unlike the literal or metaphorical proverbs which can be applied to refer to various subjects. For example, A woman’s place is in the house can be applied in situations where women only are the subject, and not other subjects such as men. On the other hand, literal proverbs like Honesty is the best policy or metaphorical proverbs like An early bird catches the worm can be applied in a wide variety of situations from business to marriage: an early bird can be anybody who is early in doing some work; honesty can be in any situation.

IV. Summary and ConclusionIn the above discussion, a detailed semantic analysis of the literary, figurative, and restricted (subject specific) types of proverbs has been made. A special discussion of similaic, hyperbolical, paradoxical, and metaphorical proverbs has been carried out to compute their literal meaning. In addition, a simple ka:rmik linguistic motivation has been offered for the formation of metaphorical proverbs.

As has been shown, there is a formal linguistic (semantic) process in encoding and decoding the meaning of proverbs but it is not the end of the derivation of meaning. This meaning has to be integrated into other types of meanings to arrive at the final meaning of the proverb in its use in a context. The referential meaning is the springboard from which the experiential meaning is derived via the prototypical and contextual meanings. In the next article, the syntactic meaning of the proverbs will be taken up for analysis and it will be shown how the syntactic meaning also serves the function of being a means to the generation of the experiential meaning (ka:rmik meaning). Furthermore, in the succeeding articles in which the prototypical and contextual meanings are derived in the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm, it will be explained how the experiential meaning is holorchically derived from them in a (w)holistic I-I-I network.

Works Cited

Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri [1998]. “The English Proverb in I/E Exchange: A Multilayered Systemic Analysis”. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL

------------ [1999]. “The Telugu Proverb in I/E Exchange: A Multilayered Systemic Analysis”. A Paper Presented at the First International Congress On English Grammar. Hyderabad: CIEFL

------------ [2000a]. “Reference, Sense and Denotation in Proverbs”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL

________ [2000b]. “Propositions in Proverbs: A Semantic Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL

________ [2000c]. “Synonymy and Antonymy in Proverbs: A Semantic Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL

----------- [2000d]. “Figures of Speech in Proverbs: A Semantic Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad: CIEFL

----------- [2009a]. “Linguistics in Proverbiology: A Plea for Proverbial Linguistics as a Special Branch.” Keynote Address delivered at the Third International Colloquium on Proverbs, Tavira, Portugal

----------- [2009b]. “The Phonotactics of R in English: Formal Linguistic Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory”. Al Mergib Journal of English Studies, Volume 1. Al Khoums and Ghasar Khiar: Al Mergib University

Berry, M. (1981a). “Polarity, ellipticity, elicitation and propositional development, their relevance to the well-formedness of an exchange”. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 10, No. 1. 36 - 63.

------ (1981b). “Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi - layered approach to exchange structure”. In Studies in discourse analysis. (ed.by) Malcolm Coulthard and Martin Montgomery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.120 - 145.

----- (1981c). “Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges”. Network, 2. 23-32.

Leech, Geoffey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited

Lyons, John (1979). Semantics I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

----------- (1979). Semantics II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Mieder, Wolfgang [1982]. International Proverb Scholarship An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Garland Publishing_______ [1990]. International Proverb Scholarship An Annotated Bibliography. Supplement I (1800 –1981). New York: Garland Publishing

_______ [1993]. International proverb Scholarship An Annotated Bibliography. Supplement II (1982 - 1991). New York: Garland Publishing

---------- [1992]. A Dictionary of American Proverbs. New York: Oxford University Press

Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers

Searle, John (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

------ (1979a). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

------ (1979b). “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts”. In Expression & Meaning. Cambridge UP

Vanderveken, Daniel (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts Vol I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

--------- (1991). Meaning and Speech Acts Vol II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press