Karmatics Sub INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT.docAligarh.doc

7/27/2019 Karmatics Sub INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT.docAligarh.doc

1/22

INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT: A KA:RMATICANALYSIS OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, Ka:rmik Linguistics and Literary Association, Hyderabad

Abstract Context is understood in different ways by different linguists. First, astext, it was the the wording that came before and after whatever wasunder attention (Halliday 1991: 3); later on, in the 19c, it was extendedto concrete and abstract things: the context of the building; the moralcontext of the day ; and then further, in modern linguistics, to the non-verbal environment in which language was used. Consequently, the wordco-text has been coined to refer explicitly to the verbal environment. At that time, Malinowski (1923, 35) introduced two distinguishing termscontext of situation and context of culture. What this means is that language considered as a system its lexical items and grammaticalcategories is to be related to its context of culture ; while instances of language in use specific texts and their component parts are to berelated to their context of situation . Both these contexts are of courseoutside of language itself (Halliday 1991: 3). In discourse analysis, it isunderstood as knowledge, situation, and text in different approaches.

According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory (KLT) of which ka:rmatics is abranch, language is not only used as a resource for the construction of ka:rmik (via dispositional) reality but it is also created from it in a five-foldreality construction process of dispositional-socioculturalspiritual-cognitive-contextual actional-actional realities. Here disposition rules

supreme by accepting, modifying, neutralizing or negating the prevailingcultural norms according to the individuals variable choice; again, even anew variable may be invented that may not become a cultural norm but used only for some time. Furthermore, culture is not a homogeneousstructure and hence norms cannot be the same across a culture as awhole. Consequently, cultural derivation of meaning is problematic at theindividual level and indeterminate at the collective level. Therefore, it is

proposed here that meaning should be derived at all the levels of cultural praxis including cross-cultural communication ka:rmatically in a ka:rmik context but not in a cultural context.

I. Introduction In the traditional theories, language is considered a mental or social orcognitive system for communicating ideas or feelings but not anexperiential (ka:rmik) system for coordinating the coordination of actionfor the fulfilment of desires and the experience of the results of action.Such a view, in formal linguistics, has led to the development of semanticsin which meaning is defined purely as a property of expressions in agiven language in abstraction from particular situations, speakers orhearers (Leech 1983: 6) whereas, in functional linguistics, meaning inpragmatics is defined relative to the speaker or user of the language

(ibid.). Leech (ibid.) redefined pragmatics for the purposes of linguistics,as the study of meaning in relation to speech situations (ibid.).


2/22

However, in our day-to-day activities, we use language to observe,interpret, identify, represent, initiate, communicate, coordinate, andexperience phenomenal and noumenal action in its variety-range-depthfor the fulfilment of our complex desires and the experience of the resultsof action. This experience is totally achieved by making dispositionalchoices of what language (words, sentences, stretches of discourse in acontext) to use, and how (when, where, manner) to use it; and why at alluse it as it is used. At the same time, our comprehension of what we hearis also controlled by our traits , phenomenal knowledge of the world, andva:sana:s (internalized habits) constituting our svabha:vam (disposition).As a result, we understand, misunderstand, and dont understandaccording to our dispositional reaction to what-how-why something is saidin, out of, and beyond a context. When we look at language from thatperspective, language becomes a means for the end of experience of pleasure and pain through the fulfilment/non-fulfilment of desiresgenerated-specified-directed-materialized by our disposition. What itmeans is that language is an experiential system for coordinating thecoordination of activity for living (which is the experience of pleasure andpain by the ji:va (human being)). Consequently, we derive meaningthrough disposition for experiencing pleasure/pain in our life. To elaboratefurther semantics as sentence meaning becomes pragmatics as sentence-in-context meaning which becomes ka:rmatics as sentence experience -in-context meaning where the experience is dispositionally created andso, being individualistic, may differ/concur across individuals in a culture:the study of meaning in ka:rmatics, then, is defined as meaning this andthat to be so and so in such and such manner derived from individual

ka:rmik experience (which is obtained as a result of a dispositionalreaction to the contextual action) or simply as (ka:rmik) experientialmeaning. As dispositionally derived experiential meaning, it contrastswith culturally derived meaning and sentential meaning which are not so.As an extension, when two cultures intersect, meaning may be initiallyderived cross-culturally but finally it is derived cross-dispositionally (i.e.,cross-ka:rmikally).

In this paper, an attempt has been made to motivate cross-culturalcommunication in a ka:rmatic framework. To do so, let us make a brief literature review of how meaning is constructed in the important formal,

functional, and cognitive schools of discourse analysis.II. Literature ReviewSchiffrin (1994: 365) discusses four well-known approaches in thefunctional linguistic paradigm (Speech Act Theory, InteractionalSociolinguistics, Ethnography of Communication, and Pragmatics) and twoapproaches in the formal linguistic paradigm (Conversational Analysis andVariation Analysis). According to her, all the four functional linguisticapproaches view context as knowledge in which knowledge of situation is a key part but variation analysis views situation and textas part of context. On the other hand, conversational analysis, accordingto her, views text as a means of displaying situationand creatingknowledge that includes knowledge of situation. From this information,


3/22

we can identify three views about context from discourse analysis: 1.Context as Knowledge; 2. Context as Situation; and 3. Context as Text andfinally a mixed view of Context as 4. Situation and Knowledge / Situationand Text.

Let us briefly explain these key concepts to prepare the ground forka:rmatics.

2. 1. Context as KnowledgeKnowledge is a broad term but it is understood to mean what speakersand hearers can be assumed to know (e.g. about social institutions, aboutothers wants and needs, about the nature of human rationality) and howthat knowledge guides the use of language and the interpretation of utterances. (Sciffrin 1994: 365). The first type of knowledge deals withthe society; the second with the individuals social being; and the thirdwith basic psychology. In both speech act theory and pragmatics, there is

an emphasis on mutual knowledge of the constitutive rules of speech acttheory. However, there is no explicit inclusion of the knowledge of disposition of the language user which is critical to choice in discourse.

2. 2. Context as SituationAccording to the Random House Dictionary (2013), context is defined asthe totality of extralinguistic features having relevance to acommunicative act (Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the RandomHouse Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2013). In the InteractionalSociolinguistic Approach, situation involves both knowledge and situation:knowledge in the cognitive context is knowledge about socialcircumstances or expectations about social conduct... Interactionalsociolinguistics also provides a way to analyze social context and toincorporate those contexts into procedures through which we infermeaning (Schiffrin 1994: 370). Goffmans (1974) sociological research oninteractional order underlies social occasions, situations, and encounterswhich help to identify socially constituted moves that help create asense of reality ( sic related to contextualization cues andpresuppositions and situated inference) in a particular interaction (i.e., adefinition of the situation) (Schiffrin 1994: 370).

In the case of ethnography of communication, context is both cognitive(what we know, embedded in our communicative competence) and social(the social and cultural components that combine to definecommunicative events) ... the Speaking Grid segments social context intodifferent segments that not only define a particular social situation (event,and act) as a closed and bounded unit (Hymes 1972b: 56) but alsoprovide a way to systematically differentiate from one another thesesituations (events and acts) that comprise the communicative repertoireof a given community (Schiffrin 1994: 371). 2. 3. Context as Text In variation analysis, context is also considered situation. However, unlikethe interactional view which considers situation as open to definition and


4/22

redefinition since the sense of what is happening now is not suppliedwhen an activity begins but is molded and remolded during differentphases of activity, such that definitions of the situation emerge at thesame time as the situation itself. Variationists don not consider a situationin toto to change once a definition of that situation is established(Schiffrin 1994: 374).In addition, variationists view text (as the linguistic content of utterances)also as context. Text provides for the what is said part of utteranceswhereas context combines with what is said to create an utterance. As astructurally motivated approach, variational analyss divides both situationand text into discrete and mutually exclusive factors that can be coded,counted and compared (Schiffrin 1994: 375). When a text is divided thus,a particular option with a particular grammatical aspect would be locatedas a context as information to be considered only in relation tosomething else that was the primary focus of our attention. Thus, text

itself becomes context (ibid.)In conversational analysis, context is considered knowledge, situation andtext. Since CA views an utterance as context-shaped and context-renewing, it views text as context. As CA inherits the goal of accounting for the common-sense knowledge that members have forconstructing talk (ibid. 376) from ethnomethodology, this knowledge isalso considered by them as a part of the same setting which is orderable.Hence, we can say that this knowledge is also context. Again, knowledgeand situation are mutually constitutive: participants understanding of their circumstances, and participants role in constructing those

circumstances through actions are all intertwined (ibid.). Thus, there is areflexive relationship between knowledge, situation, and text in context.

2. 4. Context as CultureIn ethnography of communication, culture plays a crucial role forconstructing context as situation. In SFL also there is the context of culture as discussed in the introduction. As we understand culture ispatterned group behaviour. However, it is not a homogeneousphenomenon since all the members of a society need not conform to thenorms evolved over a period of time. For example, it is a cultural norm tostay together with aged parents in India. However, it is not global in theHindu culture now. Previously, greetings are uttered bynamaskar/namaste which is also not global now in the same Hinduculture. That means that culture is not a fixed and static phenomenon; itis in a steady flux synchronically as well as diachronically. Anotherproblem with culture is it cannot include idiosyncratic as well asinnovative behaviour nor can it account for other cultural behaviourwithin a particular cultural behaviour, for example, a Hindu greeting anEnglishman with Good morning! or a Muslim with salam aleikum forreducing social distance (solidarity or empathy).

All the four approaches to context as knowledge, situation, text, andculture look at context from their own vantage point which is atomic but


5/22

not holistic. As Schiffrin (1994) discusses context extensively, any contextinvolves not only knowledge of social institutions, about others wants andneeds, about the nature of human rationality and how that knowledgeguides the use of language and the interpretation of utterances but also of situation which consists of social situation (setting and scene), theparticipants (their social identities, such as gender, age, ethnicity), theirkey (formal or informal, careful or casual style of speaking),instrumentalities (channel, forms of speech drawn from communityrepertoire), norms of interaction and interpretation (within cultural belief system), and genre (textual categories). In addition, text provides for thewhat is said part of utterances whereas context combines with what issaid to create an utterance. Therefore, we need a holistic view thatcombines all these components of knowledge, situation, and text into anunderstanding of what context is but also supplies other features such as,notably, disposition and experience which are missing in theseapproaches. In the next approach of ka:rmatics, disposition andexperience play a crucial role in providing a holistic approach whichincludes an understanding of context as knowledge, situation, and text aswell. 2. 5. Context as ExperienceAccording to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory and Ka:rmatics, language is notonly mental, social, and cognitive but also ka:rmik (dispositionallyexperiential) which includes all these three also. To explain more,language is not only used as a resource for the construction of ka:rmik reality (K. R.) at the higher level via dispositional reality (D. R) at the

middle level and actional reality (A. R.) at the lower level but it is alsocreated out of it. In fact, svabha:vam (disposition) generates-specifies-directs-materializes all types of action including lingual action in theirvariety-range-depth. The construction of ka:rmik reality forkarmaphalabho:gam (experience of the results of action; see below formore explanation) is achieved through the holorchical construction (seebelow for an explanation of the term holorchy) of five realities in a ka:rmikprocess of cause-effect experientiality. They are: [dispositional-socioculturalspiritual-contextual actional (CA.)-actional)] realities (R s )through the fifth cognitive reality (C. R.).

(1) Ka:rmik Reality: D.R. SCS. R. C. R. CA. R.A. R.[ a:nushangikally (a following member in a set inherits the properties of the previous member and has its own specific property, e.g., fire inheritsthe properties of sound and touch from air and has its own property of vision) gives rise to ].Dispositional Reality (D. R.) is the state of disposition. It is a complex of three constituents: 1. traits which produce likes and dislikes and fromthem choice, knowledge which is both phenomenal and noumenal thatinforms the being and impacts on traits, and va:sana:s which areinternalized impressions of actions that become habits and impel the

impressionalized actions without an antecedent and precedent cause ata particular point of existence in a human being. Socioculturalspiritual


6/22

(SCS) reality is the state of the societal, cultural worldview that a beingingrains from the society. It is absorbed by disposition to form SCSDispositional Reality. Cognitive reality is the state of cognition throughwhich SCS D. R, CA. R and A. R are cognized as SCS-CA-A-D. R. ContextualActional Reality is the context in which action is produced. It comprises allthe realities which come into play in the production of action. Broadly weidentify three realities: actional; dispositional; and ka:rmik but we takeinto consideration SCS and Cognitive realities also when they are neededto explain specific cases where they are causative or instrumental. Finally,Action Reality deals with the type of action mental-vocal-physical as it isobtained. Ka:rmik Reality is produced in an a:nushangik holorchy fromthese realities as shown below.

Dispositional Reality (+ K. R)

Cognitive Reality [+ D. R. (+ K. R)]Ka:rmik Reality Socioculturalspiritual Reality [ + C. R. (+ D. R. (+ K. R.))]

(K.R.) Contextual Actional R. [+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D. R. (+ K. R.)))]

Mental Action

Actional Reality Vocal Action +

Physical Action[CA.R (+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D. R. (+ K. R.)))]

Legend: Upward Pointing Arrow showing Bottom Up Cognition Process; Down ward

Pointing Arrow showing Top Down Cognition Process; Around-the-Object (I-I-IRadial, Ka:rmik) ProcessLinking Arrows of Cognition

Network 2: Holorchy of Ka:rmik RealityExperience is what an individual (C-q-D) goes through (in hisantahkaraNam internal organ which functions as mind, intellect, memoryand contemplation, and ego) by the use of his knowledge-organs andaction-organs in the conduct of his existence in the surroundingenvironment which is not only physical (spatiotemporalmaterial;contextual actional) but also mental (thoughts and ideas, emotions andfeelings; socioculturalspiritual) and vocal (lingual: spoken and written) anddispositional (Traits, Knowledge, and Va:sana:s) also. This surroundingenvironment is the context in which lingual action takes place and it is acomplex of the internal and external forces that come into play when twoor more ka:rmik actors interact for the construction of their ka:rmikreality.

The locus of experience is the Consciousness-qualified-Disposition as the ji:va or (human)being who experiences his existence as being in a state,as performing an action, and as entering into a relationship between himand the participants in action or state of being and reaps the results of hisactions as the experience of pleasure and/or pain. Put another way, as anindividual performs karma (i.e., triple (mental, vocal, physical) action)), itgives karmaphalam (phalam fruits or results of karma action ). This


7/22

karmaphalam is experienced as pleasure and/or pain according to itsnature and this karmaphalabho:gam (bho:gam experience of karmaphalam ) is interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) with hisdisposition (generating-specifying-directing-materializing) desires (leadingto) effort (for performing) action (in a) context (which is a complex of inclinational-informational-habitual (IIH); socioculturalspiritual (SCS); andspatiotemporalmaterial (STM) environment). What is more, karma (action)is also I-I-Ied with disposition in another angle by being chosen throughdispositional bias (springing from) disposition (and (creating)) responsebias (that specifies) choice of action ( which finally brings about) variationin action and contextual action (in the form of mental-vocal-physical ormixed action). These two processes are fundamental and foundational asthe Principles of Creation of Action (PCrA) and Choice in Action (PchA) inka:rmik linguistic theory and so also in ka:rmatics and are captured in thefollowing equations as I-I-I processes. (2) PcrA: Disposition Desire Effort Action ResultExperience

(3) PchA: Disposition Dispositional Bias ResponseBias Choice

Variation in Action Contextual Action LingualAction

[ Result Experience][ I-I-I or is interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-

Ied) with ] As already pointed out, ka:rmik reality is holorchically constructed fromthe five principal realities: [(dispositional-socioculturalspiritual-contextualactional-actional)-cognitional]. In a holorchy, in KLT, in the pre-actionrealization state (or the conceptualization process), the whole isconceptualized by a linear processing of the higher level into the lowerlevel in a given set of parts by gradual devolution of the parts in a topdown a:nushangik process; then it is realized (manifested in a material orenergy form) by evolving the gradually devolved parts into the whole bygradual evolution, in a bottom up adhya:sik (superimpositional) process;and then finally experienced by unifying them (conceptualization andrealization) by an around-the-object I-I-I radial ka:rmik process. Therefore,it is also multidimensional in its causation and I-I-Ied in its relation. In its

most basic level, first, an individual experiences physical/mental/lingualpleasure/pain in a spatiotemporalmaterial plane (reality); second, as asocioculturalspiritual actor, this experience will be at thesocioculturalspiritual plane superimposed on the STM plane and itbecomes an STM-SCS experience; third, this STM-SCS experiencebecomes a contextual actional (CA) experience as action (A) is performedwith other participants in a setting and it is further superimposed on it;fourth, this STM-SCS-CA-A experience is generated-specified-directed-materialized (GSDMed) by disposition (which is a complex of Inclinations-Information-Habituation (IIH)) and hence it becomes Dispositionalized(Dalized ). This D-STM-SCS-CA-A experience is cognized to be so and as aresult we get D-STM-SCS-CA-A-C experience out of dispositional


8/22

knowledge which is a complex of all these six realities; This becomeska:rmik knowledge for experience.

This D-STM-SCS-CA-A-C experience occurs in and from ka:rmik reality aska:rmik experience and never in vacuo . What is significant is that thisexperience is none other than the product of the totality of all the forcesthat come into play in the (lingual) interaction between ka:rmik actors for the construction of ka:rmik reality (i.e., context); these forces act andinteract in a cause becoming the effect (like clay becoming a pot) processand become experience by gradual evolution like different streams andrivers mingling and flowing together to become Mother Ganga herethere is a categorial transformation of forces into experience as in E= mc 2:internal and external forces as awareness, as meaning (specifiedknowledge of the world, situation, and text) transform into awareness asexperience of pleasure and/or pain. Karmaphalabho:gam (experience)occurs in and from ka:rmik reality. Put another way, it is the ka:rmikreality of this and that to be so and so in such and such manner isexperienced as that transforming into pleasure and/or pain. What thisamounts to is a categorial transformation of ka:rmik reality intokarmaphalabho:gam. But ka:rmik reality is the context and hence contextis experience. Thus, context becomes experience by vivartam (apparent transformation) as a rope becomes a snake in semi-darkness . ( 4 ) Context Ka:rmik Reality Ka:rmaphalabho:gam

(Experience) To elaborate more, experience becomes the context of all activitybecause all activity (including lingual action) is performed only for this

antecedent experience it is the goal of all activity, in terms of thisanticipated experience of pleasure it is the means of all activity, and onthis experience it is the substratum of all activity. It is present like a treein a seed at its un-manifest causal potential level, semi-manifest during itsdynamic execution like a sprout of a tree and fully manifest at thesynoptic level of realization of the tree as the tree but present all the timelike the tree in the seed, sprout, and the tree. For example, I want topresent a paper in this conference at Aligarh this is the desire springingout of my dispositions traits-knowledge-va:sana complex so that I canexperience the results of my action as this and that to be so and so insuch and such manner as meaning to give me pleasure and/or pain. Thisis the antecedent experience yet to be obtained but I put my effort onlyfor that experience. Here, the desire is something like the main streamflowing from Gangotri, and Effort, Action, and Result are the subsidiariesthat mingle in it to transform it into Ganga the experience as it appears inRudra Prayag. Second, as I put effort to present a paper, I do so only interms of that anticipated experience: presenting the paper in terms of therequirements of the conference, in terms of the means-goals thatcontribute to obtain this anticipated experience. Finally, I base my actionon this experience of getting pleasure which is visualized either from mypast experience or from the present speculated experience. Hence, in

Ka:rmatics, context is viewed as sentence (discourse) experience. In sucha view, knowledge, situation, and text are subsumed in the ka:rmik reality


9/22

in a radial relationship. The dispositional knowledge of the ka:rmik actors(as speaker/hearer) contributes to the production and reception of theutterances. As a result, knowledge as context apparently transforms intoknowledge as situation which further apparently transforms intoknowledge as text in an I-I-I network of dispositional bias producing achoice in the cogneme cognition in situation to text realization in a settingand scene.

(5) Dispositional Knowledge Situational KnowledgeTextual Knowledge Utterantial Knowledge Experiential

Knowledge.

III. Interpretation of Language in Context: A Ka:rmatic Analysis of Cross-Cultural CommunicationIn cross-cultural communication, two or more sets of cultures intersect inthe negotiation of meaning in interaction between two or more speakersbelonging to different cultures. Again, at the more basic level of theinteractants, the types of svabha:vam (literally sva self bha:vam(pattern of) thinking or cognition = disposition) that are there in theinteractants come into play in the computation of meaning in eachinteractant according to his svabha:vam.

Svabha:vam is a complex of guNa:s (traits) which produce likes anddislikes, knowledge of the phenomenal and noumenal world as theindividual knows it subjectively but not as it is objectively and va:sana:s(internalized impressions (acquired by repeated actions as habits)producing spontaneous action in a context without any precedent orantecedent cause)). Svabha:vam is independent, individualistic andvaried, converging to produce cultural norms with the collective butsometimes not, leading to bifurcation of social practices which may againspread to result in another cultural norm by convergence. It is stable forlong periods but subject to change as habits change. Since each man hashis own distinct way of reacting to contextual action or acting in asituation according to his svabha:vam, he understands, misunderstands,or does not understand the contextual action and creates his ownmeaning. This meaning transforms into experience and that experiencealone impels reaction/action in the context mere meaning cannot

produce action/reaction since all action is ka:rmik according to ka:rmatics.

For example, encountering a beggar produces the knowledge that X isbegging for money but you react/act only when you experience it; thisexperience of sympathy, etc. impels you to further action (be it verbal ornon-verbal or both); otherwise you ignore him even though it may becultural. That is why (lingual) action is considered experiential but notmere cultural or mental.

Let us take some examples of cross-cultural communication at the levelsof language, culture and religion to illustrate how experience producesproper understanding, misunderstanding, and non-understanding ininteraction.

3. 1. Understanding in Communication


10/22

When both the interactants know each others lingual, cultural, andreligious behaviour, they understand each other; however, when there isinadequate exposure to these types of behaviour, repair will bring about aproper understanding. Misunderstandings can be repaired by friendlyexplanations and sympathetic understanding on both the sides, butsuccess of repair depends on the disposition of the interactants. If theyare arrogant, dominating, and uncooperative such repairs will not bepossible and they will lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Culturalassumptions of superiority, inferiority, hostility will also impact on theinteraction and derivation of meaning.

3. 2. Misnderstanding in Communication Misunderstanding in comprehension can take place at many levels butthree levels merit our attention: 1. Language; 2. Culture; 3. Activity. Let usdiscuss these levels below.

3. 2. 1. Misunderstanding at the Level of LanguageWhen two speakers of different languages converse, the influence of usingthose languages creates patterns of lingual behaviour in speaking andlistening. In western theories, this is known as mother tongue interferenceor substratum effect . However, this is a misnomer for va:sanaic influence.It is actually the influence of va:sana:s (deeply ingrained impressions of action that will be impelled without an antecedent or precedent cause;sheer force of habit). What happens is as follows: 1. When a person learnsa language, he learns certain types of lingual action which by constantrepetitive use leave strong impressions in the mind. These impressions

become so strong that they form paths of activity like the ridges in a farm.When water is sent into the farm, it automatically flows through theseridges; in a similar way, when you process cognition for production orcomprehension of language, language is automatically forced throughthese paths into cognemes (units of cognition of an action as aconcept/pattern/material form or structure) and later into ka:rmemes(units of experience of action and its results). When something happens, itis fitted into these paths irrespective of whether it is the same or not;mere similarity is enough to create such cognition. Hence, it is va:sanaicbut not language interference somebody who is exposed to both typesof behaviour will not be affected by mother tongue interference. So it ismore appropriate to call it va:sanaic influence .

This vasanaic influence affects behaviour at all levels of activity. In thecase of language, it cuts across all levels of language from phonology,lexis, syntax, and semantics, and discourse at the formal level, all speechacts at the functional level, and production and comprehension of meaning at the semantic level, norms, practices and traditions the culturallevel, and beliefs, opinions, etc. at the religious level. 3. 2. 1. 1. Cross-cultural Misunderstanding of Phonology Cross-cultural misunderstanding can occur at any level of phonology:phonemes, tones, intonation. When this misunderstanding occurs, it canbe simple, humorous, or serious. For an Arabic (e.g., a Yemenese) speaker


11/22

of English, there is no /p/ -/b/ distinction and when this becomes a strongva:sana, there is a likelihood of miscomprehending and also using /b/for /p/ and vice versa in English. Such miscomprehension can be simple,humorous, and serious also.

Example 1. In an informal discussion with a Yemenese Ph.D. student of phonetics at EFLU, A (an Indian) was talking about misunderstandingsabout culture and religion and asked her (B) whether she knows that Hindus worship One God only without a second for which she replied inthe negative. Then, A quoted two Upanishadic statements e:kam (one)e:va (only) a (not)dviti:yam (second); Satyam (Truth) Jnanam(Knowledge) Brahma (Brh limits ma withoutthe Infinite). She wrotethese two statements and when she wrote Brahma she wrote it asPramha. I pronounced Brahma as Bramha with a metathetical /m/ asin colloquial Telugu pronunciation.

A: Do you know that Hindus worship One only without a Second God?

B: No.A: They do. It is said in the Upanishads, E:kamea:dviti:yam. Satyam Jna:namantam Brahma. B: N.V. (She writes them. Brahma is written as Prahma)

This is a simple misunderstanding of /b/ as /p/ without any seriousimplications. When I pointed out the distinction, she corrected it easily.But many racial jokes came out of such a lack of /p/ -/b/ distinction: A: CanI bark there?; I must go now. It is time to bray; etc.

Example 2. A (an Indian) who was working in a Nigerian university in

Maiduguri asked a friend (male) whether he speaks the Bura language,the following conversation took place:A: Do you speak the Bura language?B: What do you mean? (laughing)

A: I mean do you know the language of the Bura people?B: Of course, I know.

He, then, explained how I mispronounced the word. The word has a phonemic distinction by tone. Bura in high tone means the languageBura or the tribe Bura; however, in a low tone, it means the malegenital. Had the conversation took place with a sensitive female, it wouldhave been embarrassing!

Example 3. A (an Indian) was in Calabar, Nigeria, to attend a conference.In the evening, he went to a restaurant near by the University of Calabar to take his supper. The waiter is a gentleman and he was respectful anddeferential in his behaviour. When I ordered my meal, I told him that I ama vegetarian. He brought rice and beans curry and a glass of water and

put them on the table. He bowed a little near me and asked in a soft voice, Do you like to have a fok?. I was immediately taken aback andsaid No. I miscomprehended the word fork by almost correctly understanding the short rounded vowel he pronounced the long back rounded vowel /o:/ as a short /o/ close to the / / sound.

3. 2. 1. 2. Cross-cultural Humour from Gender-based Wrong Collocations


12/22

Certain collocations and words are gender specific and produce laughter when used by the foreign teachers with Libyan female students. A used touse certain expressions such as Ya: be:ni It is tiresome, U:ka le:yahanna my grandmothers weep, Wallahi By God! in a High Fall, andsome other locality specific terms ending with the suffix o: such asmizallo:, imshio:, etc.

3. 2. 1. 3. Misunderstanding of Culturally Loaded WordsMisunderstanding may crop up from using wrong words. For example, aLibyan student who is desirous of pleasing the Indian teacher may docode-switching by using a Hindi word or sentence. For example, a wordlike achcha! is allright but when the student says, tum/tu kaisa hai?,the teacher gets upset because of tum you which is low in honour,A:p you high in honour - will flatter the teacher. So also use of Mr.instead of Sir is culturally misunderstood by Indian teachers.

Implicature by indirect speech acts may also cause misunderstanding. Forexample, when an Indian says, I will finish your work by tomorrow anddoes not finish it even after a week will cause misunderstanding. In asimilar way, when an Arab Muslim says In sha Allah! and if he does notdo it, it may cause a misunderstanding to an Indian. In Nigeria, to say nois considered rude and so they will say yes but mean no in many cases.For example, my friend said that he would get me a house allotted in theuniversity within a week to a months time but he meant after one year.So I went to him week after week and he said tomorrow or next weekand finally got the house allotted to me after one year. Thank God!

3. 2. 1. 4. Misunderstanding in Religious Enquiry The most tragic misunderstanding arises out of cross-religousmisunderstanding, especially, between Hinduism and Christianity andIslam. In both the religions, there is a popular misconception of the Hinduview of God. According to Islam, La Ilaha Illallah There is no god exceptGod and according to Christianity also, there is only one God but theyalso believe in Trinity: God the Father, Holy Ghost (Spirit), and the SonChrist. They are against idolatry. In Hinduism, you come across thousandsof temples with thousands of names for God. Moreover, one comes acrossworship of idols installed in the names of these Gods. This to the

outsiders is a sin and should be abolished. For example, Muslims call theHindus mushriks and kafirs . This is the history and ground reality.

The worst tragedy is that 99% of the people in these religions dont knowthat Sanatana Dharma called Hinduism is the first to proclaim thatBrahman (God) is One Only without a Second E:kame:va:diti:jam,Brahman is the (Absolute Truth), (Infinite Knowledge) Satyam

Jna:namanatam Brahma, etc. . Nowhere in Hinduism, a particular idol isconsidered a God. Most of the names of Isvara (literally, All IndependentController (of the Creation or Universe)) literally proclaim this fact. Forexample, my name Bhuvaneswar The Independent Controller of thisSpace or Universe and hundreds of such other names as Visvanath Lordof the Universe, Jagannath Lord of the Universe, etc. speak about this


13/22

One Only without a Second God. Even a close look at the symbolism inthe idols represents the nature and functions of the Creator of thisUniverse and the worship of the idols with names such as Aum Ananta:yanamah Aum salutations to the Infinite Aum Achyuta:yanamah Aumsalutations to the Deathless, Aum Visvakartre: namah, Aum salutationsto the Creator of this Universe, Aum Visvahantre: namah Aumsalutations to the Destroyer of the Universe, etc. reveals and assertsexplicitly that God is not a piece of rock. It will be absurd to think that anidol bound by space-time-matter can be the Controller of the Universe!

The scriptures such as the Upanishads, the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, theBrahma Sutra:s are ONLY about this E:kame:va:dviti:yam Brahma andnothing else.

Most significantly, this Brahman who is One Only without a Second isshown as Realizable by anyone who follows the procedure and conducts the investigation. I think probably- nowhere in any religionthe path for realization of Brahman is so explicitly propounded with atheory, procedure, strategy, and techniques as in aparo:ksha:nubhu:ti of advaita by Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:da. However, Muslims,Christians, and even Hindus who are ignorant of this knowledge spreadmisinformation because of cross-cultural miscommunication andpragmatic and ka:rmatic misunderstanding of what God-worship isthrough idols. You know well the results of such miscommunication. Whensome Christian or Muslim who does not know that Hindus worship OneOnly without a Second God , who is empirically realizable by anyone whowants to do so, asks him out of evangelical or jihadic enthusiasm, there

will be misunderstanding.

Let me give you an example to illustrate this point.A: anta muslim? Are you a MuslimB: la. Hindu. No. Hindu.A: Hindoos! Anta salli bakra? Hindus! You worship cow?B: la. nahnu salli Allah, wahid. E:kame:a:dviti:yam.

No. We worship God, one. One Only Without a SecondA: Alhamdillallah! Allah wahid.

Thank God! God is One.Here the problem of misunderstanding arises out of many factors. First,lack of scriptural knowledge of the concerned religion; second, scatteredinformation about the principles and practices of the religion at one place;third, the very nature of the practice which is a mixed practice of representing the formless in terms of form via language describing theformless as this and that to be so and so in such and such mannerthrough a symbolic representation. One of the main reasons foradvocating this kind of worship I think is to make the invisibleomnipresence of God visible through symbolic representation of theabstract in terms of the concrete. It is theo-psychological strategy to fixthe alertness, attention and focus of the devotee on God and at the same

time provide an immediate presence of God through the symbolicallycharged image to console, comfort, and protect the devotee. When a


14/22

devotee prays, He prays Isvara and not a piece of rock! It is only at veryadvanced levels, this practice is abandoned and the God within isworshipped incessantly. The names and the Vedic chants and theworship explicitly state and imply Brahman (Lit. One without Limits; God)as Formless donning the form of the universe by an apparenttransformation owing to maya like a rope appearing as snake in semi-darkness. At the end of the conversation, the misunderstanding isresolved to that particular Muslim and he thanks God. Proper exposition of the truth will resolve miscommunication. Such repairs in a ka:rmatically structured moves, turns, and exchanges in conversation will go a longway in resolving misunderstandings.

Let us motiavate these cross-cultural phenomena in the karma:ticparadigm with a few examples. 3. 3. Motiation of Understanding, Misunderstanding, and Non-

UnderstandingUnderstanding, Misunderstanding, and Non-Understanding essentiallyinvolve cognition. In addition, cognition is aided by the mind throughdeliberation and decision-making. However this cognition does not takeplace in isolation. First, it takes place as it is happening to the individual;so his ego (ahamka:ram) comes into play. Second, his contemplativefaculty (chittam) that provides alertness, attention, focus, and memoryaffects the process of cognition. Finally, it is always coloured bydisposition which includes socioculturalspirituality of the speaker as theka:rmik actor on the one hand and knowledge of the context and thespecific action in the context in the overall network of his dispositionalknowledge of the phenomenal world. If the ego does not come into playalong with all its attendant factors, no meaning occurs. There will be plaincognition whose meaning is not determined to be this and that as so andso in such and such manner . Only as all these factors come into play,understanding takes place. If there is a fit between the world and hisdispositional wit (knowledge), proper understanding arises; if not,misunderstanding (erroneous comprehension) arises with respect to theoutside world. If the fit is not established rightly or wrongly, non-understanding arises.

Let us explain how this fit happens through graphs and figures.

3. 3. 1. Motivation of Lingual UnderstandingIn interaction, what is said or what is written is comprehended as thisand that to be so and so in such and such manner. In a similar way, whatis going to be said is also cognized as this and that to be so and so in suchand such manner. In both the cases, disposition rules supreme andgenerates-specifies-directs-materializes the concerned lingual activity inthe following stages.

3. 3. 1. 1. Contextualization of the Lingual ActivityFor any interaction to take place, there should be the interactants (cause)

who create the interaction (the action or means) about the content of interaction (effect) on a stage for interaction which becomes the context.


15/22

The stage or the base for interaction is many layered. The first layer is theexternal layer of the spatiotemporalmaterial (STM) environment whichprovides the physical environment. For example, in Example 1, there aretwo interactants: An Indian who was in Libya and a Yemenese who is nowin India. The content of interaction is about misconceptions aboutSana:tana Dharma (Hinduism) and the stage for interaction is thelinguistics lab as the spatial setting, the time between 2 and 3 P.M. as thetemporal setting, and the lab equipment and furniture as well as theparticipants as the material setting. All the three joined togetherconstitute the STM environment. The second layer is both external andinternal which is the socioculturalspiritual (SCS) base. It is physical(external) as it is reflected in the STM environment and mental (internal)as it is also absorbed in the disposition of the interactants. For example,the cultural artefacts in the external environment as they arespatiotemporally located and the knowledge of the sociocultural praxis asit is internally absorbed in the disposition (personality) belong to the SCSlayer. The third layer is the dipositional layer which is internal. It is acomplex of traits-knowledge-va:sana:s (internalized impressions of actionsas habits). Traits produce likes and dislikes as inclinations , knowledgegives information and vice versa of the phenomenal world containingobjects, states of being, and action, and va:sana:s generate action in aspecific manner and skill from internalized habits. These three factors areshown as the three outer walls of the chakram network for context. Forexample, in Example 1, the dispositional layers are the unique dispositionsof I 1 and I 2 which are internall located in them. These walls enclose thecontextual space in which interpersonal communication between the

interactants takes place for the coordination (of coordination) of action forthe fulfilment of desires and the experience of the results of action. Thisconstitutes the act of interaction by I IPC and (C) COA. For example, I 1enters into IPC with I 2 to create an interaction for the fulfilment of hisdesire to clarify the misconception. In so doing, he is (C) COA of clarifyingthe misconception. The arrow marks indicate the direction of interaction.In the upper arc of the circle the arrows move from left to right from I1 toI2 to establish contact for IPC. In the lower arc, the arrows move in theopposite directions to bring in interaction by coordination of coordinationof action through I IPC. There are four doors which open interaction for thecoordination of coordination of action to fulfil the four basic desires:material, sociocultural, mental, and spiritual by constructing the fiverealities: dispositional, socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, andactional realities. Here, the desire is an intellectual desire to clarify themisconception of thinking that in Hinduism there is worship of more thanone God and to show that it is not so by providing two scripturalreferences: e:kame:va:diti:yam and satyam jna:namantam Brahma. Whatgoes on in the interactants mind is the cognitive space shown by thespace in the first circle; what happens in the outer and inner environmentis shown by the space enclosed by the three layered walls. Finally wehave three outer circles that circumscribe the entire network of activity in

a context and become the ultimate context of experience aspleasure/pain/neutral. The experience of the results of coordination of


16/22

coordination of action is the attainment of pleasure by clarifying themisconception: A is happy that he clarified the misconception and B isnow more well-informed about Hinduism but surprised to know that.

Interactants Language

Desire Results ContextExperience

Interaction CCOANetwork 0: I-I-I Network of Interaction

As shown in the Network 0 above, Interactants, Language, and Contextare I-I-I: they are interconnected because interactants interact in acontext to produce interaction; they are interrelated because theyproduce interaction in a context; and they are interdependent becausewithout interactants, no interaction can take place, without a context, no

interaction can take place; and without interaction, no context comes intoplay, nor do the interactants. Finally, interaction takes place with afunction: to fulfil the desire of the interactants and experience the resultsof their action.

Experience

STM Layer 3 Context

SCS Layer iii

IIH Layer

2 ii iv 4

5 6

iNeutral (Witnessing)

a. 1Pleasure Pain

Legend: transmission from .. to .. ; 5 Cognitive Reality ; 6 ka:rmik

reality; I Individual; (C) COA Coordination of Coordination of Action; IPC InterpersonalCommunication;

1 Dispositional; 2 Socioculturalspiritual; 3 Contextual Actional; 4 Lingual ActionalRealities;

i Material ; ii Sociocultural; iii Mental (Intellectual/Emotional/Experiential); iv SpiritualDesires;

Cognitive Space; Contextual Space; (Contextual Result)Experiential Space

STM Spatiotemporalmaterial; SCS Socioculturalspiritual; IIH Inclinational InformationalHabitual

Network 1. Ka:rmik Network for the Context of Cross-cultural Interaction as aDispositional Process

This network broadly captures how context is the STM-SCS-IIHinterconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) network on the one hand

I IPC

I1 I

2

(C) COA


17/22

and how it apparently transforms into experience of the activity at thehighest level by mutual superimposition and vivartam.

The other examples 2 and 3 can also be analyzed in a similar way. In thecase of the Example 2 for the miscomprehension of the tonal differences,the interactants are an Indian and a Nigerian man; the content of interaction is about whether B speaks a language called Bura, the stage isa staff room in the university of Maiduguri, Nigeria (STM), and the contextis the STM + SCS (Indian culture and Nigerian culture) + the IIH of theinteractants. The interactant I 1 is ignorant of the tonal distinctions in theBura language which caused the misunderstanding. Since I 2 is friendly, themisunderstanding is repaired immediately. In the case of Example 3, themisunderstanding is caused because of mispronunciation of the wordfork /fo:k/ in a low voice by bending a little and saying it like a whisper ina close position - I was sitting in the chair and he was close to me. Whenthe word is pronounced /fok/, it sounded like the four lettered word and

caused amusement and surprise. It is repaired by the non-verbal action of bringing the fork later when I asked him to bring me a fork after I realizedwhat he meant. The explanation of the other examples can be done in asimilar way.

3. 3. 1. 2. Cognition of the Lingual Activity as a CognemeAs we have already observed, disposition is the source for impulsion of desires. In the Example 1, there is a desire to clarify a misconceptioncreated out of the misinformation on Hinduism. This desire is born out of the disposition of the interactant 1 who has a trait of disliking discord andliking harmony, has knowledge of Hinduism about Brahman andknowledge about many Muslims not knowing the true facts, and ava:sana to seek truth and establish it through knowledge in a friendlymanner. As shown in the graph, in the Disposition Quadrant, adispositional impulsion is produced from the GuNa:s (Traits) as theyimpact on the Knowledge component and the Va:sana component whichcreates the desire in the STM-SCS context of meeting the secondinteractant. This impulsion raises the desire in C-q-D (Consciousnessqualified Disposition) at the centre of the Graph 1. Again, the Knowledgecomponent is also impacted by the SCS of the interactant 1 as a member(participant) of the Hindu religion and culture. His world view

(spirituality/ideology) impacting on the Knowledge component is shown bythe downward arrow shooting towards C-q-D. With this combinedknowledge, the desire shoots up into the cognitive domain of the ConceptQuadrant where the cognition of the concept (of the desire) as a cognemetakes place: that C where C means the Cogneme of the utterance to bemade: That Do you know that Hindus worship One only without a SecondGod, that No, etc . This cogneme is cognized by interaction in a society(culture) by establishing a relationship between the interactants. It isshown by an upward shooting arrow. Finally, the cogneme is materializedas an utterance by a categorial transformation from a concept to anutterance as a text through lingual activity in the immediate STM-SCMcontext in the fourth Context Quadrant. This entire processing of acategorial transformation of dispositional impulsion into knowledge into


18/22

concept into utterance is captured in Graph 1A. In Graph 1B, the evolutionof the concept into the utterance is captured through three circles of pasyanthi where conceptualization takes place in its unmanifest state,madhyama where the unmanifest concept becomes semi-manifest as apattern and finally the vaikhari where the pattern is fleshed out withsound as the utterance it is like the architects vision transforming into ablue print transforming into the material form of the building .

Graph 1: Combined Triaxial Graphs of Cognitive Actionality Quadrants (KLT)Legend

The Individual Consciousness (the Being in the Human Being or the soul or the ji:va) The Triad (sattva giving knowledge of activity; rajas giving choice of activity by traits; and

tamas giving inertia or materiality of activity by va:sana:s) of Disposition Horizontal Line ; Vertical Line ; Diagonal Line: Horizontal, Vertical, and Diagonal Axes;

I, II, III, and IV : the quadrants 1, 2, 3, and 4; gives rise tos 1.inner (pasyanthi cognitive); 2. medial ( madhyama pattern); 3. outer (vaikhari form or phonic)

levels of realization of language

Spirituality Ideology C ogneme ConceptParticipants Society

World View Quadrant II Concept Quadrant III Outer CircleCulture Relation (Vaikahari)

GuNa:s Context Media CircleDisposition Quadrant I C-q -D Context Quadrant IV (Madhyama)

Vasanas Activity Inner Circle (Dispositional) (Phenomenal) Contextual Actionality (Pasyanthi)

Knowledge Knowledge Actionality (lingual)

KLT Graph 1. A. Combined Triaxial Quadrants of Cognitive Actionality ; B. Tricircled D-Q-C Creating Action

A ka:rmeme is a cogneme in essence but it is borne out of experience of the activity and hence, in other words, it is an experiential cogneme.When the sentence Satyam jna:namanatam Brahma is comprehendedby its cogneme-cognition, the p-b lack of distinction va:sana comes intoplay and by force of habit comprehends the /b/ in Brahma as /p/ but not as/b/ and /b/ is experienced as /p/ by the power of svabha:vam (disposition).

This happens as the two va:sana:s of I 1 and I 2 intersect each other in theC-q-D as shown in Network 2. The va:sana of the first interactant I 1

(Yemenese Ph.D. student) is superimposed on that of I 2 (the Indian) and/b/ is heard and experienced as /p/ - like a rope is seen as a snake in semi-darkness. Mere cognition of the sound is not enough since it does notproduce action / reaction. It is only experience of it that producesreaction. And so this experience gives rise to the knowledge of /b/ as /p/and further impels B to write it as /p/ only. This reaction takes place in I 1sC-q-D as shown in Network 3 as experiential knowledge of /b/ as /p/. In thenetwork 3, the cognition of I 1 absorbs the sound /b/ and creates its ownerroneous comprehension of it as /p/, as knowledge, in a flash of awareness by the sheer force of the va:sanaik disposition. This va:sanaikdisposition is the cause for that erroneous comprehension. It is shown bythe star in the central cord of the trident impelled by disposition as thebase, the butt.


19/22

Language Traits 2Traits 1

Interactant 1 Interactant 2 Knowledge 2Knowledge 1

Va:sana:s1Interaction Va:sana:s2

Network 2. Interactants-Language-Interaction Network

Language ComprehensionKnowledgeForm: /b/ comprehended as /p/

Function Style WHY

Content ContextDisposition Disposition Manner

HOW WHAT

Cognition Action Cognition Action Place Time

Interactant 1 Interactant 2

Why How What

Inter action Network 2: I-I-I Network of Action Process

Network 3: Trishu:l (Causal) Network of Interaction Va:sanaik Disposition

Language Reproduction: /b/ reproduced as /p/

Legend:3 Strings on the Left: 3 Strings on the Right:

Function - Content - Form Will Analyticity - Memory - Skills (Top) (Centre) (Bottom) (Top) (Centre) (Bottom)

Outer Circle: Context Inner Circle: Style

Locution Erroneous Comprehension

Disposition C-q-D(Consciousness-qualified-Disposition)

Cognition Interaction

Mutual SuperimpositionNetwork 4: Dhamarukam (Process) Network of Interaction

Finally, its materialization in the form of the letter p in her notebook isshown in process network 4. Here as I 2 produces the locution by hisvolition (will), I 1 listens to it also by volition. /b/ as knowledge of the

.


20/22

locution (shown by the green circle and the rim as the vaikhari of thelocution) is received as /p/ by erroneous comprehension (shown by the redcircle and its rim as the vaikhari of the comprehension). The central blackring is the linking part that brings about interaction. In the product Network 5, the actual materialized phenomenon, that is, /b/as /p/ is shown. Here the form angle is the one where you realize the /p/letter as the lotus emerging out of the interaction in the mind in asuperimposed form on the fivefold realities and materialized on the paper.

Contextual Action Mind

Style Meaning

Socioculturalspirituality Cognition

Form Function

Context DispositionNetwork 5: Product Chakram of Form Realization

So also it is the case with Bura and fork and other examples on cultureand religion.

The entire process of the application of dispositional comprehension canbe captured at the individual level by the Aumkara Chakram in a succinctmanner as follows. By the convergence of mental and physical action,vocal action emerges out of the mouth and it is used for the coordinationof coordination of action and the results of the action are experienced bythe C-q-D shown by the black moon.

Mental Action

Action Experience Result

Coordination of Coordination of Action

Physical Action Vocal Action

Network 5: Application Chakram Network of Interaction

IV. Summary and ConclusionIn the analysis conducted above, a review of context as knowledge,

situation, text, and culture has been made and it has been shown thatcontext comprises all these and it is much more than that since it includes


21/22

disposition and experience. It has been further shown that context at thehighest level apparently transforms into experience since it is for experience, in terms of experience, on experience and finally throughexperience that the coordination and/of coordination of action is carriedout by lingual action for the fulfilment of desires and the experience of theresults of action. As a result meaning is derived in communication as wellas cross-cultural communication through context as experience.

Three important domains for cross-cultural communication are identifiedas the domains of language, culture, and religion and one example of cross-cultural misunderstanding of the phoneme /b/ is exemplified through5 networks and one graph in the ka:rmik linguistic /ka:rmatic paradigm.

The entire basis for understanding, misunderstanding, and notunderstanding in cross-cultural communication lies in the role of disposition in generating-specifying-directing-materializing choices of meaning through an interplay of traits, knowledge, and va:sana:s. Traitsdecide the causality for action (WHY), for understanding something asthat thing or misunderstanding something as another thing or notunderstanding something as anything. Knowledge decides thepropositional content (effect) of understanding, misunderstanding, andnot understanding (WHAT). Finally, the va:sana:s streamline the processof understanding, misunderstanding, and not understanding in certainways (means) unique to the interactant (HOW). The I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) nature of Why-What-How is captured in thenetwork 6 given by the side of network 3 to explain the cause for

interaction as experience of pleasure by the fulfilment of desires throughthe use of language as means. In that sense, cross-culturalcommunication is examined as ka:rmatic cross-cultural communicationand not mere pragmatic cross-cultural communication. A detailedexposition of ka:rmatics in terms of Ka:rmik Principles and Maxims is notpossible here owing to constraints of space and the reader is requested tosee Bhuaneswar (No Date) for an elaborate discussion of these Ka:rmaticPrinciples and Maxims.

Hope this paper serves as a spring board for further research in rethinkingpragmatics as ka:rmik pragmatics (or Ka:rmatics).

References1. Bhuaneswar, Chilukuri (2006). A Process Model of Proverbial Titling in

Journalism. Festchrift for Michael Arnadouv, Vol.4. Rousse: University of Rousse, Bulgaria. 318-27.

2. _______ (2007). Variation in Telugu and English Proverbson Horse: Evidence for an Integrated Linguistic Theory of Culture. VOgledalniia sviat na ezika I kulturaata. Eds. Rusi Rusev et al. Ruse: Leni-An,2007, 69 -111.

3. ______ (2009). The Phonotactics of R in English: FormalLinguistic Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory. Al Mergib Journal of English Studies , Vol.1 . Ghasar Khiar, Al Mergib University.


22/22

4. ______ (2010). Derivation of Referential Meaning in Proverbs I -Propositional Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach. Misurata Univeristy

Journal of English Studies, Vol.1. Ghasar Khiar, Misurata University.

5. ______ (2012a). Speech Act Theory and ProverbialDiscourse: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis, in: Scientific Newsletter, 2 (18),Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Voronezh,Russia.

6. ______ (2012b): Derivation of Referential Meaning in Proverbs2 - Syntactic Meaning of Complex Speech Acts: A Ka:rmik LinguisticAnalysis, In: Scientific Newsletter, 2 (20), Voronezh State University of

Architecture and Civil Engineering, Voronezh, Russia.7. ______ (2013). Dispositional Creativity in QLB as a Telugu

Word-Formation Process: Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory. IJDL, Vol.XLII No. 2, June 2013. Thiruvananthapuram: Dravidian LinguisticsAssociation. 150-195.

8. ______ (No Date). Derivation of Meaning in Proverbs:A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach. Bhuvaneswar Chilukuri on Scribd. www. Scribd.com9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). The Notion of Context in Situation10. Leech, Geoffey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman GroupLimited11. Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse , Blackwell, Oxford.

*****

Documents

Karmatics Sub INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT.docAligarh.doc