Chapter 5 - Conclusion

Language is generally perceived as the medium for communicating one's ideas to the other. Thus, language faculty includes not mere linguistic factors, but psychological as well as social factors are also significant. This communication or transference of thought takes place through meaningful linguistic units and each meaningful unit represents a complete thought. This meaningful linguistic unit is in the form of sentence and thus, linguists and grammarians accept sentence as the unit of communication. Therefore the study of sentence and sentence-meaning has drawn the serious attention of linguists, grammarians and philosophers. The ancient scholars in India called this meaningful linguistic unit as śabda and it was accepted as one of the means of valid knowledge (śabdapramāṇa). As a result of this serious attention given to the concept of sentence, by the eastern scholars, various theories and concepts have evolved in the realm of language studies.

In the present study titled "The Treatment of Concept of Sentence -a Study based on Vākyapadīya", emphasis has been given to the various propositions of the concept of sentence and sentence. Here, a humble attempt is made to understand the ways in which these concepts are envisaged in the different systems of thought in India.

While going through the detailed discussions on the perspectives of different thinkers on these concepts, the following observations are made.

1. Almost all Schools of thought accept śabda as a distinct means of valid knowledge as it unveils the knowledge hitherto unknown. The term śabda is used to denote the meaningful linguistic unit and it is generally defined as in the form of sentence.

2. The concept of sentence is defined in manifold ways by the preceptors of different schools of thought. In general, the sentence is defined in two perspectives; Sakhaṇḍa and Akhaṇḍa. The former school treat sentence as a collection of semantically connected words. Though sentence is an aggregation of its parts, it denotes a unified sense and thus, is considered as a unified entity, which is distinct from the parts. The factors that constitute the unity of sentence are ākāṅkṣā, yogyatā and sannidhi. The individual words in the sentence are interconnected by these factors. Sanskriticians give emphasis to these factors in their discussions on the concept of sentence. On the other side, a group of philosophers hold that sentence is an indivisible unit of language (Eko' navayavaḥ śabdaḥ), devoid of any parts. This is the Akhaṇḍa School of sentence.

3. If sentence is defined as the aggregation of words, the meaning of sentence is also decided by the meanings of the individual words. The individual words are associated semantically to denote a unified sense. This particular meaning is distinct from the meanings of the parts. This process of the cognition of sentence-meaning, derived from the semantic association of words is generally termed as ' śābdabodha' or 'verbal cognition'.

4. There are two subdivisions under śābdabodha viz. khaṇḍaśābdabodha and akhaṇḍaśābdabodha. In the first variety, the import is produced by the parts of the sentence while in the latter, it is produced as a unitary whole. Almost all Indian thinkers are in fond of khaṇḍapakṣa of verbal import, while Bhartṛhari and his followers set forth the theory of akhaṇḍaśābdabodha.

5. There are two major theories in the khaṇḍapakṣa of verbal import viz. Abhihitānvayavāda and Anvitābhidhānavāda. The followers of the Bhāṭṭa School of Mīmāṃsā and a group of Naiyāyikas are the major followers of the Abhihitānvaya theory. The essence of this theory is that, the words in a sentence first designate their meanings and then the word-meanings are brought together to give the sentence-meaning. While Prabhākara, the founder of the Prābhākara School of Mīmāṃsā, and his followers believe in the latter theory of verbal import. According to them, each word in the sentence gives a connected meaning and hence the meaning of the sentence can be comprehended from each word.

6. Bhartṛhari, who upholds the theory of indivisibility of sentence and sentence-meaning, accepts Akhaṇḍavākyasphoṭa as the real nature of sentence and Pratibhā, a flash of understanding, as the sentencemeaning. These concepts are elaborately discussed in the Vākyakāṇḍa of Vākyapadīya.

7. Bhartṛhari examines language in three levels viz. analytic level, communicative level and ultimate level. As a method of communication, language is the carrier of thoughts and thoughts cannot be communicated in bits and pieces. Thus sentence is the unit of communicating ideas and it is also indivisible in nature.

8. Bhartṛhari is a staunch believer of the indivisibility theory of sentence and sentence-meaning and he provides a number of arguments to support this theory. Just like the perception of a multi-coloured picture, which is evolved as a unity in spite of subsequent analysis into its component coloured parts, a cognition presenting different jobs as its contents is a unitary entity in reality (Vākyapadīya, 2.8-9). It is indivisible into several individual cognitions. Though a sentence has various components in subsequent analysis, it is cognised as unitary whole by the speaker as well as listener. If a sentence is divisible into words and words into phonemes, then this division has to be carried out further. Therefore, the sentence is accepted as undivided into constituent parts and conveys one single meaning.

9. The individuality of the subsequent words in the sentence is also explained by Bhartṛhari in the analytic level of language. For the purpose of grammar, sentence can be analysed into its parts such as noun, verb etc. This is not real, but is carried out in the mind. Bhartṛhari termed this unique concept as ' apoddhāra'. Though the listener grasps the sentence as the sequence of words, the sudden flash of understanding Pratibhā, cognizes the meaning of the sentence as a whole. After the cognition of sentence-meaning, he identifies the individual words and their meanings by the process ' apoddhāra'.

10. While discussing about the meaning of the sentence, Bhartṛhari introduces the theory of Pratibhā, which states that the sentence conveys its meaning in a flash. To explain how sentence is comprehended, Bhartṛhari goes beyond the level of uttered speech. In order to explain the problem of linguistic communications, he introduces this very concept, which signifies the intuitive linguistic disposition. From both the point of views of the speaker and the listener, the sentence meaning cannot be accepted as, that which is built up gradually on the basis of word meanings. It is grasped through an instantaneous flash of insight. This instantaneous understanding is neither spatial, nor particular, nor dependant on the peculiarities of a particular language. It is the instinctive power of the mind. Thus, Pratibhā can be experienced, but cannot be expressed to others in terms of 'it is this'.

11. Bhartṛhari expounds the important characteristics of Pratibhā in several verses. From the listener's point of view, Pratibhā is the meaning of a sentence and thus, it is the semantic unit of language. But Bhartṛhari also explores the deeper levels of this concept. From the speaker's point of view, it is identical with the Paśyantī state of Vāk. This unravels the psychological as well as the philosophical outlook of Pratibhā.

12. Bhartṛhari explains six kinds of Pratibhā and thus, is conceived in a very comprehensive way. The manifestations of Pratibhā range from the basic instincts of animals and birds to the superhuman perceptions of ṛṣis. Thus, the concept of Pratibhā, introduced by Bhartṛhari goes beyond the level of communicating the sentence meaning. He conceives it as an intuitive instinct, the implications of which, can better explain several philosophical and psychological aspects of human language and thoughts.

13. But this innovative way of thinking introduced by Bhartṛhari was not developed by the later scholars over the centuries. Later in modern linguistics, structuralism and behaviourism tried to analyse only language performance. They overlooked the idea of language competence and the cognitive grammar of language. The transformational or cognitive way of thought developed by Bhartṛhari remains stagnated till the second half of 20^th century. It was in 1970s that scholars like Charles Fillmore^[1], George Lakoff^[2], Ronald Langacker and Leonard Talmy^[3] etc, who did not follow the prevailing tendency to explain linguistic patterns by means of appeals to structural properties internal to and specific to language, tried to rediscover the cognitive principles of language. Later, the basic concepts of Chomskian school of linguistics tried to bring back a rich tradition of generative grammar and cognitive philosophy of language. It was Noam Chomsky, who tried to identify the theories behind language competence and put forth unique and innovative theories regarding he relation of language and mind. Thus modern linguists tried to develop the innovative ideas of Bhartṛhari and explore new horizons in the field of linguistics and psychology.

14. Recent trends in Linguistics point to the necessity of deconstructing the views of Bhartṛhari in the light of the revolutionary concepts of Modern Transformational Linguists. The major theories of transformationalists are 'generative grammar' and 'language competency'. These theories resemble Bhartṛhari's concepts of sentence and sentence-meaning in manifold ways.

Modern linguistics has become a fast developing area of study encompassing various other fields of learning such as Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, Cognitive Sciences and Information Technology etc. Linguists have different opinions on vexed questions like what is a sentence? What constitutes the sentence meaning? How is sentence constituted? How is the meaning of a sentence cognised as a whole by the listener? These problems have emerged into the realm of Semantics very recently. Transformational linguists and cognitive linguists contributed much in the field of Syntax and Semantics. The revolutionary ideas of modern cognitive linguists such as Chomsky and Langacker were erected upon the studies of the concept of sentence and cognition of the sentencemeaning.

In the light of these revolutionary developments of transformational and cognitive linguistics, the so called 'mystic' ideas of Bhartṛhari on sentence and sentence-meaning can be deconstructed. The concept of sentence as a unitary whole and Pratibhā, an intuitive instinct as the meaning of sentence can be analysed beyond their linguistic characteristics. The psycho-linguistic analysis of the concept of Pratibhā, in the light of modern cognitive linguistics, has a wide scope to study further. In addition to this, Bhartṛhari states that the sentence-meaning is a flash of awareness, which happens in memory (smṛti). This aspect of Pratibhā can also be taken up for further study connecting neuroscience and psycho-linguistics.

Thus it can be concluded with the remarks of Jan Houben:-

Modern cognitive linguists and construction grammarians, on their part, may find to their surprise an extensive amount of investigations in Bhartṛhari's work and in the Bhartṛharian way of Pāṇinian grammar that directly pertain to basic issues in their research programme. A rapprochement between Bhartṛhari studies and cognitive linguistics is therefore expected to be most fruitful and stimulating for both parties. (2009, p.539)

Many modern scholars are endeavouring in this area of studies, but Bhartṛhari and his Vākyapadīya still remain the sources lof endless innovative and scholarly speculations even in this era.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

1993. Construction Grammar Coursebook.

[2]:

1977. "Linguistic Gestalts."

[3]:

1978. "The relation of grammar to cognition."