Ka:rmik Linguistics: Theory and Practice 1 An Overview of The Karmik Linguistic Theory by Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar
Ka:rmik Linguistics: Theory and Practice 1 An Overview of The Karmik Linguistic Theory by Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar
Ka:rmik Linguistics: Theory and Practice 1 An Overview of The Karmik Linguistic Theory by Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar
The creation, production, and application of speech is not a simple and atomic but a
complex and holistic activity that involves an intricate interconnected-interrelated-
interdependent networking of various levels beyond, above, within, below, and
outside language in Nature.
Beyond
Above Outside
●
Below Within
1
fourth, as they live as individuals, they do so as members of groups within groups
(societies within societies) and perform group activity through individual and
interpersonal activity and vice versa, again, in an interconnected, interrelated, and
interdependent individual-collective network for the negotiation of their desires by
their dispositional coordination of activity; and
finally, they live in a context, and conduct their living by coordinating their contextual
activity for the fulfilment of their desires and the consequent experience of
pleasure/pain.
(1e) Individual Group Greater Group Individual /Social Experience
As a result, their living becomes (individual) dispositional, socioculturalspiritual,
spatiotemporalmaterial, contextual activity and its experience - which is called
samsa:ram or ka:rmik experience in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory where the adjective
ka:rmik refers to this experience as a principle without any religious connotations - note
the spelling of ka:rmik as opposed to karmic to denote the new meaning (cf. the
spellings of Intention vs Intension; and the changes in meaning of karma in Hinduism
and karma in Sanskrit grammar to justify such a new spelling).
To explain it further, the adjective ka:rmik refers to that experiential principle of cause-
effect reality observed in day-to-day living of the individual (and collective) human
beings as living systems with reference to their variable dispositional contextual
actional perspective where the experience of pain and pleasure (through cause-effect) is
generated, specified, directed and materialized through the primary means of
dispositional impulsions [vis a vis the physical perspective of matter as non-living
systems where there is no experience but only cause-effect as observed in physical laws;
and the religious (approximately spiritual) perspective where there is experience but
through the primary means of piety and sin: religion (as the HOW) is a theory of
spirituality (as the WHAT)].
2
the KA:RMIK REALITY (again, note the spelling of ka:rmik as opposed to karmic to denote
the new meaning) of human existence which is its CAUSAL REALITY.
The external world out there with objects, states of being, and actions; the internal
world in here within the individual with emotions, feelings, intellection, and ideas, as
knowledge; the possible worlds that can be materialized out of the external and
internal worlds: and the imaginary worlds that can only be visualized and considered
to be not possible at the time of their visualization are ABOVE language and constitute
the semiotic content of language, which is the PHENOMENAL OR MATERIAL ACTIONAL
REALITY. Phenomenal actional reality embodies ka:rmik reality via dispositional reality
as follows.
When speech is used, it becomes lingual action and when it is further used in a context,
it becomes contextual lingual action; and when chosen, it becomes
dispositionalcontextual action; and furthermore dispositional sociocultural -spiritual
action in its cultural context. This gives rise to its ultimate experience. Its
contextualized experiential structuration as a complex of form-function-cognition-
disposition (personality)-action is BELOW language. This constitutes the LINGUAL
ACTIONAL REALITY which is a part of the overall structuration of the contextual actional
reality generated, specified, and directed for the construction of ka:rmik reality.
This ka:rmik reality is experienced not only in terms of lingual actional reality but also
in terms of a (W)holistic experiential network (an atomic-holistic network within networks
principle) of triple action (i.e., an experiential, dispositional, mental, vocal, and physical
action complex). Just like a bird not only needs a body (consisting of the limbs, wings,
etc. for physical action), not only chirping (vocal action) that sends signals, not only a
mind that processes the activity of flying, etc. (mental action), but also a disposition
(personality) that generates, specifies, directs, and materializes its activities (dispositional
3
action) to experience its flying existence in the spatiotemporalmaterial plane of the world in
its own socioculturalspiritual context with the other birds (experiential action), so also a
human being does need not only a body, a mind, and a vocal organ but also a
disposition (personality) to coordinate the coordination of action through speech to
experience his living within the spatiotemporalmaterial plane of the world within his
own socioculturalspiritual context with the other human beings as well as the
environment that consists of the rest of creation. His existence is interconnected-
interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) with other phenomena in a huge mind boggling
network of action-reaction sequences. Hence, a theory of language should also I-I-I all
these networks in a unified framework – otherwise, it will be like describing a woman
like an object of flesh for enjoyment, or a source for raising a family, or a rudder to
stabilize man, etc. but she is all these and beyond all of them.
Likewise, as we observe the descriptive and historical linguistic data, we find that there
is a unique process of language-ing by dispositional cognition, patterning, and
structuration in first, cognizing the very symbolic system of language by the power of
analyticity, and creativity; second, by the power of productivity, patterning and structuring
that system according to the choices of the speakers of a language; and finally using it
contextually and maintaining it culturally by dispositional choices. Above and beyond,
there is internal variation within and external variation across languages at all the levels
5
of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics which can only take place
because human beings made choices in the formation of the system born out of their
variable disposition (personality).
In a similar way, when the dispositional biases vary and new choices are made,
variation in the patterns will emerge and eventually new types are formed. Such
variations will gradually lead to bifurcation points and thus create new rules within the
system. Again, as the variation widens to a point of visible separation, a sub-system
(such as a sociolect or dialect) within the main system develops. When the sub-system
creates mutual unintelligibility, it breaks off from the main system and becomes an
independent biolingual, autopoeitic and dissipation system by itself. Thus, these factors
indicate an indispensible and critical role for dispositionality in the formation,
application, and retention of languages as well as their separation into new languages.
In this theory, it will be argued, at all the formal, functional, and the cognitive levels,
that the formation of these systems is dispositionally generated, specified, and
directed rather than genetically inherited a la Chomsky or societally impelled a la
6
Halliday or merely conceptualized a la cognitive linguistics. If it is proved to be correct,
then, it offers evidence at all the levels of the formation of the linguistic systems that
language is not only used as a resource for the construction of dispositional reality but it
is also produced as a result of dispositional reality). Consequently, it will also prove the
fundamental assumption of the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory that language is
dispositionally produced by human beings living in a context and dispositionally used
by them for living in a context.