4.1 (b): Anvitābhidhāna theory of Sentence-Meaning

[Full title: 4.1. Mīmāṃsakas' View on Sentence-Meaning, (b): Anvitābhidhāna theory]

As stated, this theory is held by the followers of the Prābhākara School of Mīmāṃsā. When a speech act is carried out, both the speaker and the listener are concerned with the meaning of the sentence, and not with the meanings of individual word-meanings. Thus Prabhākara opines that words do not convey a meaning except in the context of a sentence. Like the Abhihitānvayavādins, this school also upholds that the meaning of a sentence is cognized by the individual word-meanings and their mutual relation. But, what is peculiar to this view is that, the individual word-meanings and their relation are conveyed by the words themselves. They assert that it is impossible to comprehend the isolated meaning of a word apart from its relation in a sentence. The words convey their meanings only as related to one another in a sentence. Thus, each word denotes a connected meaning, and not its individual meaning, in the sentence. The Anvitābhidhānavādins admit that the words are capable to convey its meaning as well as the relation.

Hence the sentence-meaning is directly conveyed by the words themselves.

ākāṅkṣāsannidhiprāptayogyārthāntarasaṅgatān
svārthān āhuḥ padānīti vyutpattiḥ samśritā mayā.
  —(Vākyārthamātṛkāvṛtti, quoted by Raja, 1963, p.98).

This is the central idea of the theory of Anvitābhidhāna propounded by Prabhākara and his followers.

This can be well explained by an example. In the sentence 'gamānaya' (bring the cow), the word 'cow' does not denote an isolated meaning of 'cowness'. But it signifies the cow, which is related to the action of bringing. Similarly, the word 'bring' does not signify the action of bringing in general, but related to the cow. Thus the words in this sentence express their own meaning, at the same time, the syntactical relationship between them also. It can be deduced that the words in a sentence directly convey the sentence meaning.

This view of comprehending a sentence is so close to the psychological analysis rather than the linguistic analysis in nature. Hence the psychological factors behind the language act can be analysed through this theory. The followers of this theory emphasize on the natural method of language analysis by which the children learn the meaning of words. They observe the speech act of elders and their activity following the utterance, and they come to know the significance of the words. When a person says to another 'bring the cow', the latter brings the cow accordingly. A child, who hears the sentence uttered by the former and observes the action that follows, understands that the sentence 'bring the cow' signifies an action of bringing the cow. Later, the speaker again says 'bring the horse' and the latter brings a horse. Observing this, the child again infers that the sentence 'bring the horse' signifies the action of bringing horse. By comparing these two sentences, he understands that the word ' bring ' is common in the two sentences and it must denote the command to bring and the two different words 'cow' and 'horse' must refer to the two different animals. Thus, by the mental process of exclusion and inclusion (āvāpa and udvāpa), the child develop a general idea of the meaning of the individual words. Later, the child is able to understand the meaning of even a new sentence containing the words he has already come across.

This is well explained in the Śabdakhaṇḍa of Sidhāntamuktāvalī.

evam vyavahārādapi yathā prayojakavṛddhena ghaṭamānayetyuktaṃ tacchrutvā prayojyavṛddhena ghaṭa ānītastadavadhārya pārśvastho bālo ghaṭānayanarūpakāryaṃ ghaṭamānayeti śabdaprayojyamityavadhārayati. tataśca ghaṭaṃ naya gāṃ badhānetyādivākyād āvāpodvāpābhyaṃ ghaṭādipadānāṃ kāryānvitaghaṭādau śaktiṃ gṛhṇāti.——-prathamataḥ kāryānvitaghaṭādau śaktyavadhāraṇe' pi lāghavena paścāttasya parityāgaucityāt.
  —(Sidhāntamuktāvalī, Śabdakhaṇḍa: 1988, p.561-563)

Kunjunni Raja opines that, the Anvitābhidhāna view is accepted by the ancient Mīmāṃsakas Jaimini and Śabara (1963, p.199). The passage from Śabarabhāṣya, which was argued by the Abhihitānvayavādins to support their view, is criticized as fallacious, by the followers of this school (Under Jaimini, 1.1.25). They explain the same passage as supporting their view. According to this, words convey their meaning as qualified by one another. Abhinavagupta refers to this theory in his Locana as ' dīrghavyāpāravāda'. This is because in this theory, there is no limit to the extent of meaning that an expression can convey (Quoted by Raja, 1963, p.199).