Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 an
d try to account for the formal and functional properties of language together i
n an eclectic approach.
The basic principle of Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory is based on the fundamental ass
umption that all action is dispositionally specified and directed. Lingual actio
n is also no exception to this since it is one type of action human beings perfo
rm. In this view, disposition (personality) is at the base of all activity and a
ny action springs from disposition (personality) as follows:
(1) Disposition (personality) - Effort – Action – Result – Experience.
Again, whenever an action is performed, it is performed by a choice as follows:
(2) Disposition (personality) – Dispositional Bias – Response Bias – Choice
– Action.
Even if there are no two explicit options required to trigger a response bias, t
here is always an inherent set of options to do or not do an action and as such
there will always be a response bias for an action and consequently a dispositio
nal bias to trigger the response bias and finally a dispositional basis and disp
osition (personality) to create the dispositional bias.
In addition, any type of action is hierarchically evolutionary in its structure
as follows:
(3) Concept (Process) evolving into Pattern evolving into Structure
where the concept and pattern are abstract (in the form of imagination) and the
structure is material (in the form of sound). In systems thinking also such a vi
ew is held. According to Fritjof Capra's New Synthesis Model, the structure embo
dies the pattern and the pattern embodies the process. For example, a house is c
onceived (concept) by an engineer and its blue print (pattern) is visualized and
made on a drawing paper and finally materialized by the construction of the hou
se with cement, bricks, etc. However, the desire to construct a house and its de
sign are generated, specified and directed by the disposition (personality) of t
he engineer.
What is more, every action is not a mere patterned structure but it has another
important dimension to it: it has a function as well. In fact, form, meaning, fu
nction, and disposition (personality) are also interconnected-interrelated-inter
dependent by the Principle of Radial Reciprocal Interaction:
(4) Disposition (personality) – Function – Action [Meaning – Pattern – Structur
e] – Result – Experience.
In other words, there are two dimensions to every action: form and function. In
our real life, we come across mainly two types of action: 1.formal-functional ac
tion; 2. functional-formal action:
(5) Action : Formal – Functional or Functional –Formal.
In formal-functional action, action procedes from an already existing form by gi
ving it a function (e.g., in firewood, already existing wood (form) is endowed w
ith a function of creating fire by burning it) and in functional-formal action,
action procedes from a conceived function to form (e.g., a car (form) is created
out of a function to transport people).
Applying this concept to language formation, we can say that meaning is abstract
as differentiated awareness of this and that and it manifests itself in concret
e form via symbolization, (i.e., semiotic representation) and this symbolization
requires a system or a pattern which is phono-lexico-syntax [sound (phonetics)
evolving into lexis and lexis evolving into syntax]. Finally, this pattern is ma
terialized as sound manifests it in the form of speech. However, the desire to c
reate a language as well as its design are generated, specified and directed by
the disposition (personality) of the language community.
(6) Disposition (personality) - Semantics -Phono-Lexico-Syntax (Grammar or S
yntax in the Traditional Sense) - Speech or Language
As a language such as English or Arabic is not already there in the formative st
ages of its evolution, we can say that a language is a functional-formal creatio
n. Of course, as it is transmitted to a child as it grows up, it is transmitted
as a formal-functional product: the child makes use of an already existing syste
m.
The creation of the language system is an action and as such it follows equation
(4) and therefore function and form are interrelated-interconnected-interdepend
ent in a radial relationship. Furthermore, its cognition is also a part of the w
hole process.
Language process is more complex than the construction of a house and as such th
ere are so many other factors involved in its formation. These include the inclu
sion of the cognitive, the sociculturalspiritual, the contextual actional, and a
ctional planes of action on the one hand and the individual-collective standardi
zation of the language, atomic-holistic functionality of phonemes-words-sentence
s-discourse-action-result-experience to construct the dispositional reality (as
the ka:rmik reality) of the human beings. But the point is that all these factor
s are parts of the whole process where the whole is greater than the sum of the
parts and even beyond the whole. All the same, as a language is created, it is c
reated functional-formally and so form and function are interrelated-interconnec
ted-interdependent. In Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, form, function, cognition, and
disposition (personality) are all integrated in a hierarchical evolutionary str
ucture through the five realities posited in the evolution of ka:rmik reality as
follows:
(7) Ka:rmik Reality – Dispositional reality – Socioculturalspiritual Reality -C
ognitive Reality – Contextual Reality – Actional Reality
and then
(7) Disposition (personality) – Desire – Function – Form [ Meaning-Pattern-S
tructure] –Action.
Therefore, Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory is holistic in its framework and tries to a
void the pitfalls of the formal and functional theories.
If language is innate or cognitive or social action, then it is difficult to acc
ount for both the internal and external variation in language on the one hand an
d the extensive expansion of language in its variety, range, and depth. The empi
rical evidence we get from all the levels of language from phonetics to semantic
s; from pragmatics to discourse points out the role of choice in language. Where
ver there is a choice, there is a response bias and a causative dispositionalbia
s and disposition (personality) behind it:
(7) Disposition (personality) Disposition (personality) Bias
Response Bias Choice Variation
Lingual Action
If we look at language from a process and product perspective, historical lingui
stics points out that in the formation and use of language there is an interconn
ected-interrelated-interdependent networking of
1. cognitive abilities;
2. phenomenal knowledge;
3. living demands;
4. dispositional creativity; and
5. experientiality
out of which only the cognitive abilities are genetically inherited and disposit
ional creativity is genetically inherited but contextually harnessed. The remain
ing two are externally anchored. Every word that came into existence would not h
ave come into existence without the networking of all the four factors. It is im
possible for a human being to create vocabulary without phenomenal knowledge of
the real, possible, or imaginary worlds; or without creativity; or without the d
ispositional functional pressure to fulfill his desires; or getting the experien
ce of the desired results without using language. Such linguistic creation depe
nds on the dispositional social semiotic cognition of action and therefore such
action is decisively not innate. So also it is not social even though society pl
ays the crucial role of individual-collective-contextual standardization and tra
nsmission of language but not the actual creation of language. It is so because
it is a creative phenomenon and requires individual intellectual initiative to c
ommunicate with others by using such intellectual principles such as superimposi
tion, etc.
References
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2005). On Shedding “Crocodile Tears”: A Ka:rmik Linguist
ic Analysis. Hyderabad: The Proverbial Linguistic Group Desktop Publications
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman
Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell