Indian Linguistic Traditions and Structure

Research record

In many traditions of Indian linguistic philosophy, questions of rules, relationships, sentences, classes, semantics, prohibitions, lexical power and epistemology are present in highly developed forms. For this reason, the reader is easily drawn after modern structuralism—was Panini's grammar, Bhartrihari's philosophy of phraseology, Mimansa, Nyaya-Navya-nyaya or Buddhist Apoh really an Indian structuralism? A simple “yes” to this question is historically misleading. Panini presents a very subtle grammar of ruled form-formation; Bharthari brings into question the totality of linguistic perception and the primacy of sentences; Mimansa opens the relationship between word–sentence–meaning–method; Justice forms a realistic structure of word–substance–race–speaker–evidence; Buddhist apoh presents a negative demarcation of class meaning. They are not even identical to each other. Modern structuralism develops from Sassure’s sign–signified, linguistic values, distinctions and systemic relations. The historical origins, philosophical goals, metaphysics and system of proof of the Indian traditions are quite different. Therefore, it is necessary to secure differences before seeing similarities. The basic assertion of this chapter is that “structure” in Indian linguistic traditions is present not as a shared principle form, but in separate question forms—rules of morphology, syntactic wholeness, substantive relations, syntactic conditions, class demarcations, evidential communication and conceptual detachment. The Paninian system shows a productive discipline of rules; Bhartrihari emphasizes linguistic unity; Mysticism clarifies the reciprocal expectations and implications of syntax; It nuances the types of justice–new justice relations and the criteria for epistemology; Buddhist Apoh shows the role of differential demarcation in a class sense. These traditions should not be considered as precursors of modern structuralism. The “structure” of structuralism and the Indian “system/relationship/sentence/word power/apoh” are historically independent concepts. Let the comparison be only on problems, argument-forms, analytical functions and limitations.

Structured debate

Pūrvapakṣa

The first form of the former argues that the rereading of ancient Indian traditions on the basis of modern “structure” terms is itself essentially anachronistic. Why compare when there is no structuralism in the original text? The second precedent is nationalistic—Panini, Bharthari and Navya-nyaya were more advanced centuries before modern Western linguistics; Therefore, it is appropriate to say “preform”. The third premise is Western-centric—Indian traditions are religious/classical, inappropriate to compare with the scientific structural analysis of modern linguistics. The fourth premise is from internal Indian differences—putting Panini, Bhartrihari, Mimansa, Nyaya and Buddha in one chapter can lead to an artificial whole called “Indian”. The fifth antecedent is from social criticism—the classical linguistic tradition developed within a highly technical and specifically educated class; The vernacular, women, caste exclusion and the structure of public linguistic life were not central enough.

Uttarapakṣa

Answer to the first premise—comparison becomes anachronistic when concepts are declared to be identical. Problem-dialogue is not necessarily anachronistic: old arguments can be read in the light of modern questions, if historical differences are kept clear. Answer to the second precedent—temporal priority does not prove philosophical identity. Panini’s formalism is unique, but to say “Panini was already a structuralist/generative linguist” flattens history, goals and concepts. Answer to the third premise—“scientific” versus “classical” simple divisions are also misleading. Indian traditions develop very rigorous methods of logic, rules, proofs, counterarguments and analysis; Their religious/philosophical context would not have eliminated the technical value. Answer to the fourth premise—the term “Indian” should only be an umbrella of geographical/intellectual areas; The autonomy, disagreement and historical development of each tradition should be set aside. Answer to the fifth premise—social boundaries should be accepted. Parallel philosophy expands its scope by combining classical technological content with folk language, orality, women's experience, multiethnic language use, education and modern publicity.

Parallel conclusion

Structural questions are extremely rich in Indian linguistic traditions, but not a single “Indian structuralism”. Panini offers a separate project of rule-system, Bhartrihari linguistic holism, mimansa syntax-condition, nyaya–navya-nyaya substance/relation, and Buddhist apoh differential demarcation. Modern structuralism is the historical project of Sassurian semiotics, differential value and relational analysis. Indian traditions are not its precursors; Comparisons only appropriate on limited problem-similarities and functional similarities. Indian dialogue also shows the limits of modern structuralism—justice demands external reality and evidence; Mysticism adds context/implication; Bhartrhari opens the question of unity; Apoh challenges class essentialism. The parallel view of Mithila takes this legacy as a methodological discipline: terms clear, relationships specified, sentences examined, evidence separate, counterarguments strong, historical influence from evidence alone.

Section index

1. Problem and scope · 5 source passages
2. Central thesis · 4 source passages
3. Major arguments · 14 source passages
4. Pūrvapakṣa · 5 source passages
5. Uttarapakṣa · 5 source passages
6. Indian philosophical dialogue · 5 source passages
7. Mithila’s parallel perspective · 7 source passages
8. Contemporary applications · 7 source passages
9. Chapter conclusion · 5 source passages
10. Chapter bibliography · 18 source passages

Cite this record

Gajendra Thakur. “Indian Linguistic Traditions and Structure.” Videha Digital Research Archive: Mithila–Vajji–Anga. Videha — https://www.videha.co.in/ · ISSN 2229-547X · GitHub mirror: https://videha-ejournal.github.io/videha/ · Digital Research Archives on GitHub: https://github.com/videha-ejournal. https://videha-ejournal.github.io/mithila-vajji-anga/records/idea/philosophy-v2-26/