INDIAN PHILOSOPHY AND MODERN LINGUISTICS

Indian philosophy has some opinion on some features of language and the same share
some close resemblance with the views of modern linguistics. Indians have a long tradition of
language analysis and study commencing from pratikhyas. The phonetics, etymology and
grammar were studied deeply in ancient and medieval India. A limitation of these studies is
that all of them are on Sanskrit languge and no universal theory about language and language
phenomenon absent. This particular aspect was attended by philosophers. All systems of
thought said their views on the functioning of language and the acquisition of language.
Before entering into a discussion on the topic one should not that the approach and
method that a philosopher and linguist follow in the analysis of language is different. As
philosophy being the study of reality a philosopher is always preoccupied with the metaphysics,
epistemology and ontology of the system. His attempts were to describe and prove how the real
can be known? As among many means to learn about, understand and experience the real
language also included. In Indian context it was termed as abda and bdajna. Opponents
put these concepts for severe scrutiny and we have many theories about language
phenomenon. These ideas have a universal characteristic were not limited to Sanskrit
language. There are many but here this paper considers just two of them language acquisition
and the relation between word and object. The first topic though it was discussed from time
Greek philosophy, become rose to hot topic of debate after the intervention of Chomsky and his
ideas of universal grammar and competence and performance. The second topic is a
comprehensive topic as it tries to explain the language as a whole. It is connected with Saussure
who described language as system of systems and explained how various parts of language and
individuals in the society are connected.
Language acquisition according to Indian philosophers
When, where the language originated? Vaidikas identified it with vk. They associated
magical powers with language which resulted in the deification of language and few Gods Vk,
brahmaaspati etc were placed as the authority of language.
1
Dais salutation to language
clarifies this position. Generally Indians accepted it as apaurueya and beginning less. But
how a human being acquires his language? They described it through an example quoting
the words of Kunjunni Raja-
Hearing the utterance of a sentence by A to B and observing the consequent
activity on the part of listener B, an onlooker C gets the idea that the activity of B is

1
gveda 10.125
based on his understanding the meaning of the sentence. At this time the whole
action of B is understood as the meaning of the whole utterance of A. From several
such observations of various utterances and their meanings, C is able to understand
the meaning of single words through a process of assimilation and elimination
2
.
This shows that a person learns his first language from his society. He learns the
conventions of that particular language vocabulary, rules and the contextual usages
gradually from the members of his society. This description is accepted by all the ancient
philosophers. But at the same time they have differences about what learns from the process.
As in the case of many Indian sciences our linguist philosopher stops a step behind.
As pointed earlier the philosophers mind took them away or distracts them away from the
natural genuine question how this happens. The linguist Chomsky starting from this point
has concluded based only on reasoning and speculation that every infant baby (fault less)
has the ability to internalise language, which he called LAD- Language acquisition Device. The

2
Indian theories of meaning, p 26-27
B n{* l |VErx P]xiH, iSUi
|Vrx P] +xi:, inv {l P]xx{
E P]xin|Vivi* iiS P] x,
MxinCn{u{ P]n{nx ExiP]n
H*
brain of the child is programmed, as a computer programme to execute certain tasks, to
acquire language. To Chomsky this programme residing in the brain of child is Universal
Grammar and the ability of the child as competence. He receives the language and the
conventions of the language community with the aid of the LAD.
Here we should remember that Indian philosophers were very close to this idea. The
definition of blaka is

. They also agree that the child uses his ability of

reasoning to learn vocabulary, the relation between word and object, the contextual
connotations etc. The reason that prevented Indian thinkers from reaching to this conclusion
was their adherence to metaphysics.
The relation between word and object
The second topic that Indian philosophy and modern linguistics share some similarities is the
discussion about the relation between word and its meaning. Here too the approach of Indian thinkers is not
of linguists. The view of each philosopher is conditioned by their philosophical position. In philosophy we
have many schemes such as materialism, idealism etc. Indian philosophers too have such orientations.
Generally language is a means of communication. It communicates concrete objects and abstract
ideas. That is the stock of vocabulary comprises words that have concrete objects as their substratum and
ideas that are mental constructs. Modern linguists were prepared to accept the situation as it is. But the
philosopher tried to explain according to their system. For example yoga philosophy which consider
knowledge as the transformation of mind. Consider the definition of vikalpa

when there is no object corresponding to a word it is called vikalpa and such

knowledge have no validity. At the same time the word have its role in language and its use is granted by
grammar. That is the correspondence theory of the philosopher is not compatible with language
phenomenon that language can build a world with its infinite images, where it departs from the realism of
philosopher.
The philosopher is concerned with the exact knowledge of the object with mathematical precision.
But language flees from there. The Indian philosophers emphasis was on how the word and object related?
They give many answers, 1. The relation is natural and permanent, 2. It is conventional, 3. There are both
conventional as well as permanent relations. They agree that word have a meaning which is called its potency
but they disagree on whether this potency rests in the actual object or in the abstract concept.
Saussure considered these aspects in detail and illustrated the complex relation of various factors of
language. He says that language have two vital components langue and parole. Langue is the property of the
language community, the vocabulary, rules and conventions shared by all the members of the community in
which the individual have no absolute control. Parole is the individuals actual use of langue in his life. Parole
is infinite while langue is finite. He sums up his observations in his words language is a system of systems.
According to him langue is a sign system. Each word is a sign of some object or concept that the
community has agreed on. And this sign concept/ object agreement is arbitrary as another language
community can use a different sign for the same concept / object.
Here too the philosopher failed to rise up to the mark. They were successful in analysing the problem.
They had the answers the best ones. But they could not provide a conclusive theory. Here the contribution
of naiyyikas cannot be neglected. They were true linguists in their spirit. From sutras to their latest works
they modified and adjusted their definitions and approaches. Yet their adherence to metaphysics and realist
epistemology restricted them from producing a comprehensive universal theory applicable to all languages.
Still their ideas are very close to that of Saussure.
To conclude, though Indian philosophers successfully analysed the phenomenon language, and
the conditions that control language they could not formulate a comprehensive theory of language that
universally applicable. They stopped just a step behind as in the case of mathematics and other sciences. The
reason is their overwhelming adherence to metaphysics and its epistemology. The grammarians perfectly
analysed Sanskrit language. The pattern was accepted all over the world and even Chomsky accepted Pinis
grammar as perfect grammar. But some unknown reasons restricted its further development to General
Linguistics.