Abstract
Throughout the many-centuries-long debates concerning origin and character of human language, one question that has surfaced again and again in different forms is of the following basic nature: ‘Is language an evolution of primitive grunts and groans, or is there something beyond cultural evolution hidden in language that does not readily reveal itself in ordinary linguistic practice?’ This is the same question as the earlier one, presented in a slightly different manner. Both ask what the Greek masters asked: Does language have phusei character or nomos character? In other words, has language sprung out of the essential nature of things or is it born of social rules of communication? Immense debates have raged through the ages around this question and its variants, and continue to do so without any clear resolution. Select parts of the important debates in both the ancient East and the West have been invoked here not in order to come to any conclusion but to deepen the pedagogical situation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Gospel According to John 1:1, The Bible, King James Version.
- 2.
“The central problem—one might almost say, the mystery of language—is the interrelation between words and the things denoted by the words. A very definite idea about this interrelation prevailed in primitive times, though it was, of course, not developed by theoretical studies. Primitive man simply took it for granted that there is a mysteriously inherent tie between a thing and its name. So strong was this belief that magical practice felt entitled to use a name as a full-fledged substitute for the named person or thing. It is sufficiently known that this concept is still alive both in folk religion and in certain sentiments and customs of every-day life. Since this attitude is concerned only with words and their relations to the named things, the magical concept of language is decidedly a concept of objective ‘language’. It is a very probable suggestion that the magical idea about language is the ultimate root from which the Greek philosophers’ belief in the phusei-character of words grew up. To be sure, there are words in which a likeness to the denoted thing is obvious. Observation of such cases, however, is hardly sufficient to account for an almost dogmatic belief in an inherent connection between word and thing as a general principle. On the other hand, motivations of this theory by Greek philosophers give the impression of secondary and sometimes rather lukewarm attempts at rationalizing an originally irrational creed.” In Alfons Nehring, “Plato and the Theory of Language” Traditio, Vol. 3, 1945, pp. 13–48.
- 3.
“By the time of Plato’s life and work, numerous crucial issues about language had been raised and examined in Ancient Greece. Two opposite positions concerning the connection between things and words, conventionalism and naturalism, were developed in a broader discussion about nature (φύσις) and law (νόμος). The idea of evolutionary development of language is put forth in opposition to archaic intuition of divine or wise founder of language. Epistemological resources of language are actively absorbed by sophists and philosophers within etymological studies and the so called theory of sound symbolism. Some particular linguistic elaborations are also introduced, such as typology of sounds and letters, words, and sentences. The situation seems paradoxical. On the one hand, the context of language studies in Ancient Greece between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE is well known and is reconstructed in considerable detail on the basis of scarce material. On the other hand, the place and role of Plato in this context, as it follows from contradictory interpretations of his philosophy, is still not clarified, despite the generosity of history to his texts.” In Alexey Pleshkov, “Plato’s Theory of Language: The Isomorphism of Kosmos and Logos in the Timaeus.” https://doi.org/10.15388/Problemos.2017.91.10506.
- 4.
The Sanskritic cultures of ancient India believed the same, believing celestial vibrations (naada) to be the primal source of language. We will come to this at a later point in this chapter.
- 5.
Plato, Cratylus, 387. The text is in the public domain available @http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/cratylus.html.
- 6.
Ibid., 388–389.
- 7.
“The Cratylus , the earliest study of the origins of language, reveals a crucial issue in Plato’s philosophy. Many of the problems in his metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics have a basis in his ambiguous response to language. Mingling the divine with the human and the conventional with the natural, Plato refuses to take a systematic position towards language. Based on the theory of Forms, the eristic Cratylus with caution probes the origin, nature, and use of words. Socrates himself recognizes the inaccuracies of some of his etymologies and phonetic analyses. His fanciful exaggerations apparently represent a satire of contemporary interpretations of words. But despite the pervasive irony and the tentative nature of the Cratylus , we can be sure of Plato’s contempt for the close study of words. Socrates can speak of names only when possessed by spirits, a reliable indication of Plato’s reservations about such an inquiry.” In Morris Henry Partee, “Plato’s Theory of Language,” Foundations of Language, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan., 1972, pp. 113–132.
- 8.
Plato, Cratylus, 390e.
- 9.
Ibid., 422b.
- 10.
Ibid., 427c.
- 11.
Ibid., 397e.
- 12.
Morris Partee, “Plato’s Theory of Language,” Foundations of Language, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan., 1972, p. 132.
- 13.
Ibid., p. 116.
- 14.
Ibid., p. 115.
- 15.
Plato, Timaeus, 48bc.
- 16.
Harold, G. Coward, The Sphota Theory of Language: A Philosophical Analysis (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1980), pp. 3–4.
- 17.
T. R. V. Murthy, “Preface,” In Harold Coward, op. cit. p. viii.
- 18.
Coward, op. cit., p. 6.
- 19.
Ibid., pp. 8–9.
- 20.
Ibid., pp. 9–10.
- 21.
Ibid., p. 21.
- 22.
Sri Aurobindo, “An Essay on the Vedas,” Collected Works (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1978).
- 23.
Coward, op. cit., p. 22.
- 24.
“To the grammarian pratibhá is inborn intelligence; it is innate and not postnatal. Pratibhá is neither an acquisition that is sense-born nor does it result from common experience. It is called samskára or bhávaná, firmly seated in our mind and linked together with the continuous currents of knowledge flowing from previous stages of existence. Here we find the justification why pratibha is sometimes denominated as purva-vasana (knowledge drawn from prior births). The mind has, truly, says Kalidasa, the power of recalling the deep-rooted impressions of previous births.” In P. K. Chakravarti, The Linguistic Speculations of the Hindus (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983), p. 104.
- 25.
Bhartrhari, Vakyapadiya, Canto I: 51, Transl. D. K. Raghavan Pillai (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971), p. 58.
- 26.
Mandana Misra, Sphotasiddha, Transl. K. A. Subramania Iyer (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973), p. 44.
Bibliography
Alexey Pleshkov. “Plato’s Theory of Language: the Isomorphism of Kosmos and Logos in the Timaeus.” Problemos 91, no. 91 (2017): 128–140.
Alfons Nehring, “Plato and the Theory of Language” Traditio, Vol. 3, 1945, pp. 13–48.
Bhartrhari, Vakyapadiya, Canto I: 51 (Transl.) D. K. Raghavan Pillai (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971).
Harold, G. Coward, The Sphota Theory of Language: A Philosophical Analysis (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1980).
Mandana Misra, Sphotasiddha (Transl.) K. A. Subramania Iyer (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1973).
Morris Henry Partee, “Plato’s Theory of Language,” Foundations of Language, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan., 1972, pp. 113–132.
P. K. Chakravarti, The Linguistic Speculations of the Hindus (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983).
Plato, Cratylus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/cratylus.html).
Sri Aurobindo, “An Essay on the Vedas,” Collected Works (Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, 1978).
The Bible, King James Version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roy, K. (2019). Language of Being. In: Education and the Ontological Question. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11178-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11178-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11177-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11178-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)