WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
)
•
FOUNDATIONS OF LANGUAGE SUPPLEMENTARY SERIES
.
v
)
Editors MORRIS HALLE, PETER HARTMANN,
SANSK
Miinster/W.
K. KUNJUNNI RAJA, BENSON MATES,
MIT
Madras
Univ. of California
J. F. STAAL,
Amsterdam
PIETER A. VERBURG,
JOHN W. M. VERHAAR
Groningen
(Secretary), Manila
Ateneo de Manila University
VOLUME 5
D. REIDEL Pl
r
I.GE
J. F. STAAL
)
,
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
fa
D. REIDEL PUBLISHING. COMPANY /DORDRECHT-HOLLAND
1967
All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means without permission from the publisher Printed in The Netherlands by D. Reidel, Dordrecht
)
,
To Saraswathy rint, photoprint, the publisher recht
, )
ntidasya k akramalz I 'ThougJ Speech Itself w As if di
Ist die Reihenfolge df modelt wird, nicht ebe ist zu antworten. dass I eines anderen nie au: etwa im Kreise unser Subjekt angewendet v. konkreten Satzes befu ill unseren Sprachen n zips der Anordnung d( keit eben ein anderer I Weg fm Aufbau eines
niidasya kramajanmatvan na purva na paras ca sal:z akramaiz kramariipelJa bhedaviin iva jiiyate
'Though sound is produced in a fixed order Speech itself has no earlier·and later. Itself without order, it is produced As if divided by the appearance of order.' Bhartrhari, Viikyapadiya 1.48 1st die Rei:henfolge der Grundbestimmungen, nach deren Modell ein jeder Satz umge~ modelt wird, nicht ebenso willktirlich, wie die der jeweils zu interpretierenden Satz? Hier ist zu antworten, dass das Vorangehen eines bestimmten Grundmornelltes und das Folgen eines anderen nie aus dem Prinzip der Reihenfolge ableitbar ist .... So kann etwa im Kreise unserer Sprachen als ers tes Grundmittel erkHirenden Verstehens das Subjekt ailgewendet weruen, insofern sich das Subjekt tatsachlich Bfter am Anfang des konkreten Satzes befindet. Das vorn Subjekt geforderte Zweite, das Pradikat, aber steht in unseren Sprachen rneistens runtenan, und hiermit zeigt sich die Innerlichkeit des Prin~ zips def Anordnung def grammatischen Interpretation: ihr fester Weg ist in seiner Festig~ keit eben ein anderer als der empirisch wandel bare und von Fall zu Fall sich wandeInde Weg im Aufbau eines Satzes. H. J. Pos, tJber den tJ.u/bau der grammatischen Interpretation, p. 303
This monograph 01 and the theory of word order in Sa, unexpectedly, the J treatment even to pretations by India be so greatly at va rewarding. Accordi grammar had to bl selves. In this con spiring but positive This book may There were alterna' construct a merely or else one- could I
is not only unillun restrictions seemed not only to make word orrier, but als for these and other I should like to Halle, A. L. Vos, D criticism and oppo~ especially to Chon Professors S. A. I D. F. W. van Lenr 1966, Brighton-An;
PREFACE
This monograph owes its existence to certain puzzles in universal grammar
and the theory of language which led the author to an investigation of word order in Sanskrit and its possible analyses and descriptions. Not unexpectedly, the raw material was found to be too vast for a first-hand treatment even to be attempted. Rather surprisingly, however, its interpretations by Indian and Western theorists and grammarians turned out to be so greatly at variance, that an analysis of these interpretations seemed rewarding. Accordingly, theoretical issues within the framework of generative grammar had to be faced anew, and alternative solutions suggested themselves. In this connexion the Sanskrit grammarians proved not only inspiring but positively helpful. This book may invite the accusation that it wilfully mixes disciplines. There were alternatives: one could try to write a history of the subject; or construct a merely formal edifice, leaving it to others to test its adequacy; or else one could make the notorious attempt to stick to the facts, which is not only unilluminating but also bound to fail. Any such self-imposed restrictions seemed to conflict with the original intent. And so it was decided not only to make available the results of the investigation into Sanskrit word order; but also to introduce a theory of universal grammar to account
. for these and other results. I should like to thank Professors C. E. Bazell, Noam Chomsky, Morris Halle, A. L. Yos, Dr. A. Kraak and Mr. P. G. E. Wesly fortheir suggestions, criticism and opposition. It will be obvious where I am indebted to them, and especially to Chomsky. Bibliographical information has been supplied by Professors S. A. BOllebakker, Barron Brainerd, A. L. Yos and by Dr. D. F. W. van Lennep, to whom I am also very grateful. 1966, Brighton-Amsterdam
J. F.
STAAL
IX
I. INTRODUCTIOl
II. INDIAN THEOR
A. ~kprtitiStikhJ B. Palfini and f C. Jaimini, Sab. III. WESTERN SANS IV. SUMMARY AN:O
APPENDIX: SOME BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Texts and Tl B. Other Work: INDEXES
A. Names B. Technical T. C. Technica! T. D. Languages
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. }J.kpriitisiikhya, Nirukta, Brhaddevatii
16 21
B. PaJ.lini and Pataiijali C. Jaimini, Sabara, and Kumarila Bhana
26 45
II. INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
III. WESTERN SANSKRITlSTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
51
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
60
APPENDIX: SOME SEMANTlC RELATIONS
81
BIBLIOGRAPHY
91 91 91
A. Texts and Translations B. Other Works INDEXES
A. B. C. D.
Names Technical Terms: Sanskrit Technical Terms: English Languages
95 95 96 97 98
XI
Vaman Sivaram 11: scholars who were Guide to Sanskrit ( reprinted at least tVl and colleges in Indi, of this remarkable occur: "In Sanskril
and the grammatic: stands to another .. that need be much there is a sort of log a particular order. one another in thE nection .... " (Apte Thoagh Apte w: English School, an need not be surpri current among San Mahiibliii~ya, i.e., 1 relevant in the pre: one word to anotl inflexion), and abJ rangement of WOf( could be specified \ delimit the scope 01 it is sometimes-said but not in syntax, : they were intereste, 1960, 66; 1961, 12! .grammarians were
accordingly in grar The distinction I in order to study s
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Vaman Sivaram Apte was among the most illustrious of those Sanskrit scholars who were at the same time Sanskrit speakers. His 'Student's Gnide to Sanskrit Composition', first published in 1881, was re-edited and reprinted at least twenty-five times and continues to be used in high schools and colleges in India. In §§ 399-401 (from the second edition ofl885 onwards) of this remarkable treatise on Sanskrit syntax the following statements occur: "In Sanskrit every word (except adverbs and particles) is inflected, and the grammatical inflexion itself shows the· relation in which one word stands to another. Thus grammatically speaking, there is no order as such that need be much attended to. ". But if there is no grammatical order, there is a sort of logical sequence of ideas, which must follow one another in a particular order. ." Words must be so arranged that the ideas will follow one another in their natural order, and the words in their natural connection. "." (Apte 1963, 263-4). Though Apte was, among other things, the superintendent of a New English School, and wrote his 'Guide' in English for Indian students, one need not be surprised at finding that these statem~nts reflect distinctions current among San$krit grammarians at least from the time of Pataiijali's Mahiibhii~ya, i.e., for more than two millennia. The distinction which is relevant in the present context is that between sGlflbandha 'the relation of one word to another within a sentence (as shown, e.g., by grammatical inflexion), and abhisa'flbandha, anupiirvya or iinupiirvi 'the order or arrangement of words (as occurring in actual utterances),. This distinction could be specified within a general theory of language; in India it served to delimit the scope of the science of grammar or vyiikarGl;a itself. For, though it is sometimes said that the Sanskrit grammarians were interested in grammar but not in syntax, it would be misleading to interpret this as asserting that they were interested in words (pada) and not in sentences (viikya) (cf. Renou 1960, 66; 1961, 129). It would however be correct to say that the Sanskrit grammarians were interested in sa'1'bandha and not in abhisa'1,banda, and a~cordingly in grammatical relations but not necessarily in word order. The distinction between abhisa'1'bandha and sa'1'bandha will here be used in order to study so-called 'free word order'. Despite appearences it might 1
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
be said, as we shall see, that the existence of this phenomenon is not clearly established and that its significance has not been adequately clarified. 'Free word order' itself (which would, if anywhere, obtain in a language like Sanskrit) will here be studied not only for its own sake but also because of its relevance to contemporary linguistic theory. This study will accordingly be l?refaced with some remarks about recent developments in linguistics showing what place is occupied by considerations of word order. At the same time these remarks will provide the framework for the descriptions which follow. The Greek word for order, ,a~t<;, led not only to the formation of the term syntax, but also to the framing of the term taxonomy, which at present serves· to characterize the main inadequacy of structural linguistics. Lees, who uses the term in this linguistic sense, described taxonomy as "the view that sentences are constructed from left to right, word for word, by the simple adjunction of successive constituents one to another" (Lees 1963 2 , xix). Taxonomy, in this sense, corresponds to the Sanskrit abhisarrzbandha, and structural linguistics can in this sense be characterizcd by its insistence upon abhisarrzbandha. But structural linguistics may be judged not only by this emphasis on taxonomy, but also by the "idea of basing a taxonomy strictly and exclusively upon phonemic form" (ibid., xxi). In general, taxonomic linguistics insists on confining its attention to the phonemic form, arrangement and intonation of utterances by classifying their elements in terms of simple labelled bracketing. The utterances thus analysed are collected from a fixed corpus. All this is postulated in order to Gonfer on linguistics the status of an empirical science. AciuaIly, such empiricism is misguided (cf. Chomsky 1964, as well as several studies by P. M. Postal). This misguided form ·of empiricism could easily combine with a behaviourist theory of language use and learning. At the same time it adhered to the idea of a discovery procedure by means of which a grammar is supposedly obtainable, by mechanical means, from the physical snape of the utterances obtained from a finite corpus (just as parts of botany are presumably obtainable, by mechanical means, from a stretch of jungle). Just as structural linguistics may be characterized by its insistence upon taxonomy, the Sanskrit grammatical tradition may with reference to syntax be characterized by its insistence upon sarrzbandha or grammatical relations. This has not been generally recoguized; even Lees referred to "the Plilfini, or Taxonomic approach" in connection with the treatment of compounds (Lees ibid.). This characterization may be due to the particular interpretations Plilfini has undergone at the hands of some 1·9th-century Western linguists. Whitney, for example, was not only a Sanskrit scholar to some extent familiar with Plilfini, but has also been quoted (by Chomsky) as one who 2
expressed most clear in the concrete sensl';:
man expresses his th expressed with regal artful and difficult fc in the statement ane the cost of distinct grammar by Buisko, The correct apPJ ontlined by Faddego of the latter half oflt taxonomists. It is Whitney in this can: "Whitney has admir Referring to the kti/ this analysis to sepa a!l attempt which th century have condet understand languag< logical aspect, i.e. its lying declension and ics and a mechanisti so besides· the .injm twenty-five centuries it is even questionat (Faddegon 1936, 18 We shaIl repeate, to have something: modern linguistics tl al linguistics to ger linguistics' can be n grammarians disco' importance of rules for the generative I relate exclusively to the discovery (or r< interpretations in t, in the simplest c.as' assumptions have t( science) with regard Such underlying stTl I
i
INTRODUCTION
IGRAMMAR
!,.non is not clearly oly clarified. 'Free , a language like but also because ly will accordingly ,mts iu linguistics Jrder. At the same lescriptions which ;formation of the " which at present linguistics. Lees, IDmy as "the view ifor word, by the aer" (Lees 19632 , it abhisGlflbandha, i by its insistence dged not only by .sing a taxonomy ,In general) taxophonemic form,
their elements in ,analysed are colto confer on linch empiricism is
,y P. M. Postal). ith a behaviourist Ihered to the idea 'Ir is supposedly of the utterances : presumallly ob~
insistence upon rerence to syntax rnatical relations. i to "the Pa~ini, :t of compounds lr interpretations Ilestern linguists. to some extent ;ley) as one who
)
expressed most clearly the taxonomist point of view, namely, that "language iiJ. the concrete sense ... (is) ... the sum of words and phrases by which any man expresses his thoughts" (quoted Chomsky 1964,22). The same Whitney expressed with regard to Pa~ini's grammar his disapproval of "the highly artful and difficult form of about four thousand algebraic formula-like rules in the statement and arrangement of which brevity alone is had in view, at the cost of distinctness and unambiguousness" (quoted from Whitney's grammar by Buiskool1939, 2, who subsequently refutes this view). The correct approach to the study of the Sanskrit grammarians was outlined by Faddegon, whose description in 1936 of "the Occidental linguists of the latter half ofthe nineteenth century" applies equally well to present-day taxonomists. It is clear, moreover, that Faddegon thought especially of Whitney in this connexion (cf. a phrase from the motto for his 1936 book: "Whitney has admirably attacked Pa~ini but for Pa~ini we forget Whitney"). Referring to the ktiraka theory, Faddegon said: "Evidently Pa~ini tries in this analysis to separate the ideational aspect from the linguistic expression, an attempt which the Occidental linguists of the latter half of the nineteenth century have condemned, misled as they were by the hope of being able to understand language through the exclusive study of its phonal and morphological aspect, i.e. its articulative utterance and the association-system underlying declension and conjugation, as if the application and imitation of phys-
ics and a mechanistic psychology were the last word of moral science. And so besides the injustice done to a pioneer of grammar who lived about twenty-five centuries ago by associating with him results of modern grammar, it is even questionable whether Pa~ini has not something still to say to us" (Faddegon 1936, 18). . We shall repeatedly be in a position to observe that Pa~ini continues to have something relevant to say. But let us return to the framework of modern linguistics that will be adopted here. The development from structural linguistics to generative grammar or what could be called 'theoretical linguistics' can be most readily described by stating (I) that the generative grammarians discovered (or re-discovered: see below)- the fundamental importance of rules for the statement of linguistic regula;ities; and (2) that for the generative grammarians, the observations of structural linguistics relate exclusively to the surface structures of sentences. This follows from the discovery (or re-discovery, to some extent: see Chomsky 1966a) that interpretations in terms of these surface structures are inadequate (e.g., in the simplest case, for describing constructional homonymy) and that assumptions have to be made (like mutatis mutandis in almost any other science) with regard to abstract structures underlying the surface structures. Such underlying structures constitute a deep structure, which directly deter3
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
mines the semantic interpretation of sentences. The deep structure is described with the help of a relatively simple kind of re-writing rules, which are said to generate the base; when formulating such rules, we shall make use of a single arrow ( -7). Rules of a different type, i.e., transformational rules, ar,,: needed to convert deep structure into the surface structures which det~rmine the physical shape of actual utterances; when formulating such rules, we shall make use of a double arrow (=», which will also be used in formulating context-sensitive rules .. While natural languages differ greatly in their surface structure, the difference in deep structure is, to say the least, less obvious. This has led in turn to the further assumption that the deep structure, which determines the semantic interpretation which must to some extent be invariant und~r translation, largely incorporates what was to be a class oflinguistic universals, i.e., universal structures valid for all natural languages, or structures of 'universal grammar'. This has linked these recent developments with traditional theories of universal grammar and with classIcal European rationalism (Chomsky 1966a), and at the same time has made for a much closer connection between linguistics, psychology and philosophy - itself again constituting a return to an earlier point of view (ibid., 76, note 4). In this sketchy survey of contemporary linguistic theory one important element has so fl;r been omitted: the incorporation into linguistic theory of rules which are able to account for the fact that there are infinite possibilities of expression in every language. The main technical contribution of generative grammar in this respect is the introduction (from logic and mathematics) of recursive rules, which safeguard the possibility of deriving infinitely many expressions. Aiter such rules had first been introduced into the transformational componeilt of the syntactic patt of generative grammar, they were subsequently confined to the base which expresses the deep structure. The simplest solution which is nowadays adopted is the incorporation of a single l recursive rule in the base component (excepting a rule schema required for conjunction). This rule is of the form:
where S is the initial category symbol which occurs on the left of the arrow in the initial rule of each derivation, 'f"\' expresses concatenation and A is a category symbol which is introduced by earlier rules of the derivation. The recurrence of S guarantees the possibility of derivation of infinitely many expressions. All this will be illustrated below. It may be noted that the notion of rule corresponds to the notion of 1 Actually, a pair of recursive rules: (3a) and (3b) on page 6 below. For a recent modi~ fication see Rosenbaum 1967.
4
siitra as it occurred
placed in the 2nd ce with regard to the f account for infinitel: ruIes is implicit in t grammarian Bhartrl counting. 4 In what follows w, as given in Chomsky version (in which se omitted) is clearly . of English, but it a: English sentences all( that will be required accessible in a publis with other investigat given of the simplifie which provides the available. (The rules some modification iJ is also inessential in The re-writing rul' following (cf. Cham
See, e.g., Staal 1963 ; : Mahiihhii!ya, ed. Kie "Now if grammatical e: particular word for the matical expressions 'co' No, says the author, thi standing of grammatic addressed Tndra during by speaking each particl instructor, Indra as the could not be attained, s most a hundred years? ' for the understanding expressions acquired? S posed ... ," 4 Vakyapadiya 1.87: J bhede'pi tathii sabdiintar standing of other nuni mentator Harivf$abha srutiparicchedopiiyii viik. from hearing other WOI 2
3
GRAMMAR
'p structure is deTiting rules, which , we shall make use sformational rules, , structures which 1 formulating such ), Nill also be used in :ace structure, the lUS. This has led in lich determines the le invariant under .nguistic universals, S, or structures of 'pments with traditropean rationalism Iuch closer connec~ If again constituting
:ory one important
linguistic theory of infinite po.ssibilities bution of generative : and mathematics) ling infinitely many 1 into the transfor~ramll1ar, they were jeep str~cture. The incorpo.ration of a ing a Tule schema
he left of the arrow ,atenation and A is , of the derivation. ivation of infinitely Is to the notion of IW.
For a recent modi-
INTRODUCTION
sutra as it occurred in pat;lini. 2 His commentator Pataiijali (traditionally placed in the 2nd century B.c.; cf. below, page 48 note 19) was explicit with regard to the fact that only a finite number of rnles are required to account for infinitely many expressions. 3 The recnrsive character of such rules is implicit in the comparison made by the 5th-century phiiosophergrammarian Bhartrhari between the recognition of new sentences and counthlg. 4 In what follows we shall adopt a simplified version of the rules of the base as given in Chomsky's Aspects.ofthe Theory of Syntax (1965). This simplified version (in which sentence boundary marks, for example, will always be omitted) is clearly insufficient for the description of all sentences, e.g., of English, but it already provides for the description of infinitely many English sentences and it appears to possess all the characteristics of the system that will be required in the following discussion. Though this system is now accessible in a published form, its presentation in Chomsky 1965 is combined with other investigations. A relatively detailed explanation will therefore be given of the simplified version adopted here, so that precisely the framework which provides the background for the following discussion will become available. (The rules of the base of Chomsky 1965 have already undergone some modification in more recent work; cf. e.g. Rosenbaum 1967. But this is also inessential in the present context). . The re-writing rules of the base, which expresses the deep structure, are the following (cf. Chomsky 1965, 106-7): (1) 2 See, e.g., Staal 19'63; for siitra in general see Renoll 1963. 3 Mahiibhii$ya, ed. Kielhorn 5.23-6.3 (th~ original is quoted in Staal 1967b, note 1): "Now if grammatical expressions are taught, must this be done by the recitation of each particular word for the understanding of grammatical expressions - must, e.g., the grammatical expressions 'cow', 'horse', 'man', 'elephant', 'kite, 'deer', 'Brahman' be recited? No, says the author, this recitation of each particular word is not a means for the understanding of grammatical expressions. For there is the following tradition. Brhaspati addressed Indra during a thousand divine years going over the grammatical expressions by speaking each particular word, and still he did not attain the end. With Brhaspati as the instructor, Indra as the student and a thousand divine years as the period of study the end could not be attained, so what of the present day when he who lives a life entirely lives at most a hundred years? ... Therefore the recitation of each particular word is not a means for the understanding of grammatical expressions. - But then how are grammatical expressions acquired? Some work containing general rules and exceptions has to be composed .... " 4 Vakyapadlya 1.87: yathiidyasalikhyiigrahavam upiiya(l pratipattaye smikhyiintariilJiim bhede'pi tathii sabdiintarasrutib 'just as grasping the first numbers is a means for the understanding of other numbers, even when different, so is hearing other words'. The commentator Harivr$abha explains the last words as follows: tathii devadattiidisabdiintarasrutiparicchedopiiyii viikyariipapratipattf/:t 'so a sentence is understood by means of analysis from hearing other words, su~h as Devadatta'.
5
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
(2) VP --> V"NP (3) NP --> (Det)"N':'(S). The parentheses in the third rule denote option, i.e., (3) stands for the following four rules: NP --> Det"N"S (3a) NP-->N"S (3b) ) , NP --> Det"N (3c) NP-->N. (3d)
Thus (3a) and (3b) are the only rules which' contribute recursiveness. The symbols may be read as follows:
S:· 'Sentence' . NP: 'Noun Phrase'
V: 'Verb' VP: 'Verb Phrase'
Det: 'Determiner' N: 'Noun'.
These rules permit the construction of infinitely many trees, e.g.:
s
/~
Det
(i)
N
)\
Det
N
s
A vA
NP
~ N~
Det
AAA
Det
N
N
(ij)
V
Det
6
Det
N
etcetera.
We shall now, gre 79-111; cf. also Sta English vocabulary:
Then, in accorda illustrated by the tn universiti, 'the stu 'the student own the own the book', etc concord or governn rules will be cons markers will have t sentences can be df enter the universit) restrictions of a se may eliminate, e.g., The tree (ij), on t are more interestin! university' or 'the u Other transformatic strings, e.g. {from tl ver3ity' (but also: 'b second) 'the univeJ perhaps: 'the univeJ With the help of a great many sente. structing trees on th again and again, Wf In principle this results, extremely I many specific transl general, remains for the overall structure pIe, for the generati feature which cha.n that order is not or Sentences (as certair underlying them. Tl e.g., (1)-(3), introd
GRAMMAR
INTRODUCTION
(2) (3)
:3) stands for the (3a) (3b) ) (3c) (3d)
We shall now, greatly simplifying Chomsky's conventions (1965, especially 79-111; cf. a!s,? Staal 1967a), adopt a dictionary consisting in the following English vocabulary: (student, N) (book, N) (enter, V) (the, Det) (own, V) (university, N). Then, in accordance with Chomsky's conventions and adopting rules as illustrated by the tree (i), we can derive such strings as: 'the book enter the st~dent
recursiveness. The
university', 'the student enter the university', 'the
:t: 'Determiner'
'the student own the university', 'the student enter the student', 'the university own the book', etc. Transformational rules will be required to introduce concord or government into these strings (the actual shape of some ofthese rules will be considered later) and, moreover, certain transformational markers wiII have to be introduced into the base. Thereby the following
'Noun'. ,es, e.g.:
own the book',
sentences can be derived: 'the student enters the university', 'the students
enter the university', etc. Certain sentences may be eliminated provided restrictions of a semantic nature are built into the dictionary. Thus we may eliminate, e.g.; 'the university enters the student', if so desired.
(i)
,
N
-----
~
c;.gain and again, we can derive as maay sentences as we wish .
.
A
Det
The tree (ij), on the other hand, symbolizes the derivation of strings that are more interesting, e.g.: 'the student the student own the book enter the university' or 'the university the university own the student own the book'. Other transformational rules are now required to derive sentences from these strings, e.g. (from the first) 'the student who owns the book enters the uni· versity' (but also: 'book owning students enter the university'), and (from the second) 'the university which owns the student. owns the book' (and perhaps: 'the ilUiversity which owns the student owns his book'). With the help of such derivations as symbolized by the trees (i) and (ij) a great many sentences, but not infinitely many, can be derived. By con· structingtrees on the basis of (1)-(3) in which (3a) and (3b) are introduced
N
(ij) etcetera.
In principle this is a remarkably simple and, as can be seen from the regults, extremely powerful method of description. Though the form of many specific transformational rules, and also of transformational rules in general, remains for the time being a matter of some uncertainty or dispute, the overall structure of the system seems clear. Its appropriateness, in princi· pIe, for the generation of English sentences is partly based upon a specific feature which characterizes Chomskian generative grammar: i.e., the fact that order is not only a feature of the terminal strings and finally derived sentences (as certainly it sho,!ld be), but also figures in the deep structures underlying them. The reason for this is that the re·writing rules of the base, e.g., (1)-(3), introduce ordered strings by making use of concatenation. 7
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
Accordingly, the trees have a fixed structure from left to right as well. At first sight, this incorporation of order into the deep structure may seem an unfortunate and even paradoxical inheritauce from structural linguistics. For the taxonomy of structural linguistics was rejected exactly because of its adherence to surface structure, in which order plays a paramount role. So',why preserve order in the deep structure? Indeed, if order were rejected, one could adopt instead of the rule (I), which introduces an ordered string, a rule (1 '), which introduces an unordered set, i.e.: S-+{NP, VP},
(1')
It may be noticed
structure without significance in a
1
Sy1
e.g.:
as they have in a sy Moreover, the sarr constituents were tl
if we would for otl where {NP, VP} is defined as the set which contains the two elements NP aod VP; hence {NP, VP} and {VP, NP} are different expressions denoting the same thing. With the help of (I') one could, however, derive the following strings: 'own the university the student', 'enter the university the book', etc. In English, at least, this would lead to an entirely redundant proliferation of ungrammatical and unwanted strings. It is obvious that order is often further determined by transformational rules. For example, we derive: 'the students who own books enter the university' as against 'the book owning students enter the university', and not: 'the who own books students enter the university' as against 'the students book owning enter the university'. It may therefore be asked whether there is any good reason for not selecting, to the right of the arrow in (3), another o~deredstring, i.e. : (3') NP -+ (Det),"'(S)"N. So far there is no criterion which enables us to choose between (3) and (3'), thongh, of conrse, the transformational rules required in addition will have to be formnlated differently in the two cases. On the whole, and excepting the case just mentioned, it seems justified to introduce the given order into the deep structure, at least for the purpose of deriving sentences in English and in oiher languages with a similar snrface structure. This means, among other things, that the deep structure of Chomsky's generative grammars is not similar to what the Sanskrit grammarians called sal]7bandha 'the relation of one word to another' (as shown, e.g., by grammatical inflexion), since these grammatical relations have nothing to'do with surface order. There are however grammatical relations which can be derived on account of such trees as·(i). Chomsky defined grammatical relations as ordered pairs in the following way (1965, 71): Subject-of: [NP, S] Direct-Object-of: [NP, VP] Main-Verb-of: [V, VP] etc. ,8
(4) (5) (6)
The system of graI the grammatical fu in Western gramm
Sanskrit grammari: In order to find universals one mig
greatly simplified) , fied base consistin2
For the sake of sin representative fom derive: rlima apasy rules introducing ( derive from these t¥ Govinda' and govil The derivation s the English senten enters the book'. I from our failing t, The English examl' mational rule whic the fact that 'the b( means of a context· of (I), (7), and (8)5 5
Cf. Chomsky 1957, :
GRAMMAR .0
INTRODUCTION
right as well. At
:.ture may seem an
uctural linguistics. actly because of its 1 paramount role. rder were rejected, )~ an ordered
s~ring,
(1 ')
the two elements . [erent expressions Id, however, derive mter the university entirely redundant y transformational oaks enter the unitliversity', and not: ~ainst 'the students sked whether there TOW in (3), another
It may be noticed that these relations can be defined in terms of the deep structure without making use of its ordering: (4)-(6) have just the same significance in a system by which differently ordered strings are introduced, e.g.: S --; VP"'NP VP--;NP"'Y,
as they have in a system by which unordered sets such as (1 ') are introduced. Moreover, the same grammatical relations could also be defined, if other constituents were to intervene in the ordered strings which are derived, e.g., if we would for other reasons want to adopt expressions such as: S .... NP"'Adverbial"'YP . The system of grammatical. relations defined by (4)-(6) is much closer to the grammatical functions and relations which occur in traditional parsing in Western grammars, and is at the same time much closer to what the Sanskrit grammarians called sal?1bandha. In order to find out to what extent the deep structure reveals linguistic universals one might investigate what happens when the following (again greatly simplified) Sanskrit vocabulary is adopted in addition to the simplified base consisting of (1 )-(3): (apasyat, V) (govinda, N)
(rama, N).
(3') )tween (3) aIid (3'), n addition will have it seemS justified to : for the purpose of :h a similar surface deep :~tructure of the Sanskrit gram.nother' (as shown,
elations have nothica1 relations which .efined grammatical ): (4) (5) (6)
For the sake of simplicity the form apasyat 'he saw' has been chosen as the representative form of the Sanskrit Verb for 'see'. With tree (i) we can now derive: rama apasyat gavinda and govinda apasyat rama. Transformational rules introducing concord or government and sandhi will be required to derive from these two strings the sentences ramo 'pasyad govindm1'l 'Rama saw Govinda" and govinda 'pasyad rarnam 'Govinda saw RaIna', respectively. The derivation so far appears to be largely similar to the derivation of the English sentences· 'the book enters the university' and 'the university enters the book'. But this similarity is somewhat misleading siDce it arises from our failing to correctly specify the required transformational rules. The English example could have been dealt with by adopting any transformational rule which effectuates the affixing of '-s' to 'enter-' on account of
the fact that 'the book' is a Singular NP. This could, for example, be done by means of a context-sensitive rule of the form (9), following a base consisting of (I), (7), and (8)5: S--;NP0VP (1) 5
Cf. Chomsky 1957, 28-9; Lees 1963'.45; Chomsky 1965, 175-6.
9
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
NP -> (Det)"(S)"w'{!n
(7)
N"
VP->NP"V"{!n
(8)
N"
)
N"{!n"Vp
~ N"{!n"NP"V"{!~}.
In addition we requ (9)
The braces in the rules denote alternatives, e.g., (9) stands for the following two rules: N"Sg"VP ~ N"Sg"NP"V"Sg (9a) N"PI"VP ~N"PI"NP"V"PI (9b) where Sg and PI denote Singular and Plural, respectively. In addition we shall require some transformational rules which effectuate:
book"Sg ~book enternSg:::::;::- eilters.
As for the Sanskrit examples, a similar though slightly more complicated solution would seem fit. First of all, any more general description must contain a rule which is analogous to (9). This has been avoided artificially in the present example by adopting apasyat as the representative form of the Verb. But in addition, to take the first example, rtima requires a Nominative Case ending and govinda requires an Accusative Case ending. This could be achieved, e.g., by context-sensitive rules (12) and (13) following a base consisting of (I), (8), (10), and (ll): NP ->
(Det)"(S)"N"{!~}"case Nom Acc Instr Dat Case-+ Ablat Gen Loc Voc
6
(10)
(II) 6
Note that (11) might have been incorporated into (10) in the same manner in which
~~f~ is incorporated into (7)-(9). 10
This enables us to ( in tum, with the h, sentence, i.e., riimo
For the present p is tbe best possibl, be used instead of demonstrate that a what more complic:: It is worth noticin been utilized, thoug upon grammatical regards English, (9: governed by the N· witb regard to the 0: that the Subject of S the Object of VP (, again, the order of redundant informat pose order, for ex nothing to do with it could be avoided . We shall return t, that the redundant is exactly the inforn English. But it is pr< and Sanskrit break~ difficult to questiOl Sanskrit sentence , .Apte may once mo "Take ... the Engli 'Rama' and 'Govir the meaning; it will,
JRAMMAR
INTRODUCTION
(7)
N"{!~}"case"vP=> N"{::}"Nom "VP
(12)
(8)
N,,{Sg}"case"v => N,,{Sg}"ACC"V.
(13)
PI·
PI
In addition we require transformational rules which will effectuate: (9)
rtimanSg-'"'Nom => rama/:z govindanSgl'lAcc=> govindam.
; for the following (9a) (9b) y. In addition we
more complicated description must lVoided artificially Itative form of the tires a Nominative jng. This could be following a base
'(10)
(11)6
lme manner in which
This enables us to derive the string ramaQ apasyat govindam and from this in turn, with the help of transformational sandhi rules, we derive tbe first sentence, i.e., ramo 'pasyad govindam. For the present purpose we need not enquire whether the above solution is tbe best possible (transformational rnles might for example have to be used instead of context-sensitive rules); this solution merely serves to demonstrate that a solution can be found, which then turns out to be somewhat more complicated for the Sanskrit than it was for the English example. It is worth noticing, however, that the context-sensitive rules which have been utilized, though formulated in terms of ordered strings, are in fact based upon grammatical relations which do not depend on any ordering. As regards English, (9) expresses that the Number of the Verb of the VP is governed by the Number of the Subject of S; but notbing is presupposed witb regard to the order of these elements. As regards Sanskrit, (12) expresses that the Subject ofS has the Nominative Case ending, and (13) expresses that the Object of VP (or, equivalently, of S) has the Accusative Case ~nding; again, the order of elements is irrelevant. This implies that we introduce redundant information by introducing context~sensitive rules, which presuppose order, for expressing facts of concord or government which have nothing to do with order. The question arises whether this should, and how it could be avoided. We shall return to this problem much late~. However, it may be observed that the redundant information carried along by the context-sensitive rules is exactly the information required for establishing the proper word order in English. But it is precisely here that the apparent parallelism between English and Sanskrit breaks down; for in Sanskrit the situation is different. It seemS difficult to question the fact that ramo 'pasyad govindam is not the only Sanskrit sentence which means 'Rama saw Govinda'. In this connection Apte may once more be quoted. On the first page of his 'Gnide' he says: "Take ... the English sentence 'Rama saw Govind'. If the order of words, 'Rama' and 'Govind' be changed, there will be a very great difference in the meaning; it will, in fact, be a different sentence altogether. Take, however, 11
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
the Sanskrit sentence for the same: ramo govindam apasyat. Here, even if the order of the words be changed, no difference occurs in the meaning: the sentences ramo govindam apasyat, govindalfl ramo 'pasyat, apasyad ramo govindam&c., all mean the same thing" (Apte 1963, I). Since transformations do not change meaning (Katz &Postal 1964; cf. St~"1 1965b) and are, at least in a generative grammar of English, in general used to re-arrange the order of words, it appears to stand to reason that transformational rules will be postulated to account for the required permutations. It might pay to be careful and first adopt a base which directly generates the sentence which Apte quoted first, i.e. ramo govindam apasyat. This can be derived from: S -.NP"VP (14) (IS) VP-.NP"V. Subsequently three transformational rules will be added, which will be defined appropriately but in a simplified way (omitting the dominating constituents of the Phrase-marker) for the tree generated by (14)-(15), i.e.: NP"VP= VP"NP NP"V =V"NP V"NP =NP"V.
(16) (17) (18)
These rules have to be optional, since, for example, (17) and (18) would otherwise cancel each other aud neither (16) nor (17) should be applied in the derivation of ramo govindam apasyat. Then govindaJ?1 ramo 'pasyat can be derived by applying con~ecutively (14), (16), (IS) and (18); and apasyad ramo govindam can be derived by applying consecutively (14), (IS), (17), and again (17). The three remaining possibilities (presumably hinted at by Apte's '&c.') can be similarly derived. It is obvious that these manipulations are far from elegant. Chomsky therefore has, with reference to stylistic inversion (which is superficially similar to the syntactic inversion described here), emphasized "that grammatical transformations do not seem to be an appropriate device for expressing the full range of possibilities" (1965, 126). But even if other rules, similar to (16)-(18), have to be adopted, this will not only greatly detract from the simplicity of the description, but also give preferential treatment to one of the six permutations (in the present description, the order generated by (14)-(15» for which a specific syntactic justification will be needed. Actually, the general situation is more complicated. Chomsky has suggested that "stylistic inversion of 'major constituents' (in some sense to be defined) is tolerated up to ambiguity" (1965, 127) - the excluded ambiguities 12
being of the type Tochter" (see, ho" major constituents: would prevent us fr Moreover, the req elements of substr below (pages 34, 54 given to one partie ization about pern bility, then, wheth, to be quite comp adherence to strin~ fact, this state of al than strings - at Ie introduced, but at before applying ex The connection known in the West, languages with La! to Sanskrit. Chom, Marsais and from. order does not bel teen maintaiiled b{ 'syntaxe' (Choms" des mots dans Ie d ant entre eux". Ci essentially what WE have called its sur refers, however, to order does essenti, question, but it m between syntaxe , Sanskrit grammari Recently Curry 1966a, 192; 1966b and have criticized that grammatical s' the level of gramm and the level of gr; 7
In: Structure
0/ La
INTRODUCTION
JRAMMAR
yat. Here, even if l the meaning: the 'at, apasyad ramo
lLPostal 1964; cf. ) ~nglish, in general , reason that transired permutations. ectly generates the lsyat. This can be (14) (15) ,d, which will be g the dominating by (14)-(15), i.e.: (16) (17) (IS) 7) and (IS) would )uld be applied in ramo 'pasyat can (IS); and apasyad 14), (15), (17), and linted at by Apte's
elegant. Chomsky .ch is superficially l.sized :~that gram-
ate device for exeven if other 1 not only greatly ) give preferential 1t description, the ltactic justification ~ut
:::homsky has sug1
being of the type of Hirt's example from German "Die Mutter sieht die Tochter" (see, however, below, page 6S). But unless V is included among major constituents, rules such as (17) and (IS) will not be admitted and this would prevent us from accounting for tl1e six permutations considered above. Moreover, the required permutations need not generally be confined to elements of substrings dominated by major constituents, as we shall see below (pages 34, 54). Furthermore, the objection that preferential treatment is given to one particular permutation remains valid also when some general-
ization about permutability is postulated. Generalizations about permutability, then, whether to account for stylistic or for syntactic inversion, seem to be quite complicated ad hoc hypotheses, necessitated by the earlier adherence to strings. If 'free word order' should constitute a basic linguistic fact, this state of affairs would therefore suggest a description in terms other than strings - at least to start with. Word order would, of course, have to be introduced, but at a later stage (e.g., after affixing Case terminations, but before applying external sandhi rules). The connection between inflexion and free word order has long been known in the West, especially on account of the comparison ofthe vernacular languages with Latin, which in this respect is at least to some extent similar to Sanskrit. Chomsky has quoted statements about this connection from Du Marsais and from Adam Smith (1966, 45, 101). But even the view that word order does not belong to what is nowadays called the deep structure, has been maintained before. Du Marsais distinguished between' construction' and 'syntaxe' (Chomsky 1966, 47). Construction is applied to "I'arrangement des mots d'lns Ie discours", ,yntaxe is applied to "les rapports que les mots ont entre eux". Chomsky noted that "[he syntax of an expression is thus essentially what we have called its deep structure; its construction' is what we have called its surface structure" (ibid.). In a footnote (S8, on p. 103) he refers, however, to the discussion in Aspects,
whe~e,
as we have seen, word
order does essentially belong to tl1e deep structure. We shall return to this question, but it may be noted here that the distinction Du Marsais made between syntaxe and construction corresponds to the disfuiction of the Sanskrit grammarians between sal]1bandha and abhisal]1bandha. Recently Curry (1961), HiZ7 and the present writer (1965c, 17S note; 1966a, 192; 1966b, 251) have accepted free word order as a linguistic fact and have criticized generative grammar on this account. Curry has suggested that grammatical structure be stndied in terms of/unclors. He proposes to call the level of grammar which studies grammatical structure: tectogrammatics, and the level of grammar which studies how grammatical structure is repre-
some sense to be
eluded ambiguities
7
In: Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, Providence, R.I., 1961, 265.
13
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
sented in terms of expressions: phenogrammatics. These terms can now be shown to correspond to deep structure and surface structure, respectively, provided order is excluded from the deep structure. For, as Curry observes (1961,65), "if phrase structure grammar means the building up of phrases by concatenation of adjacent phras~s, then it has a phenogrammatical aspect". Whqe it seems likely that many aspects of the deep structure can indeed be described in terms of functors, it is not clear what kind of rules and mechanisms would be needed in phenogrammatics in order to derive surface expressions from grammatical structure, unless familiar transformational rules are adapted for that purpose. The use of functors in tectogrammatics for the description of deep structure, however, deserves to be further explored. The theories which have been worked out in much greater detail by Saumjan and Soboleva 8 are at first sight similar. Saumjan distioguishes between two levels of lioguistic description, the genotype and the phenotype level. Word order is again excluded from the genotype level. But while it is" again not clear how in a number of cases the transition from genotype to phenotype is made, Barbara Hall has in addition shown (Hall 1964) that Saumjan's description of the genotype itself is unsatisfactory in several ways (e.g., the members of the well-known pair 'John is easy to please' and 'John is eager to please' - Chomsky 1964, 34-5, 60-5 - come out with the same grammatical structure). It stands to reason that Chomsky has therefore strongly objected to such alternatives (1965, 124-5) and has furthermore emphasized that the introduction of sets (as in (I ')) instead of strings does not solve any difficulty and in fact creates new problems, since such sets will in turn have to be replaced by strings before actual sentences can be finally derived. The imperfections of existing alternatives to Chomsky's theory, however, do not invalidate the criticisms motivating them. It remains, for example, counter-intuitive to assume that rules of concord must be formulated in terms of strings, though concord itself has nothing to do with order. Moreover, even if order is introduced at a later stage, the rules which would precede this introduction might have a much wider scope and higher degree of generality. Such rules could in fact be more readily regarded as rules of a universal grammar. It may be noticed that rules introduciog sets, e.g.:
not merely lead te introducing ordered trees as (i) and (ij), r i.e., without postul: We may accordingl that there is one poi and only one point trees with their bral type now familiar ir points dominated b dominated by a ne grammatical relatiOJ well as for trimmed appropriate for syr rules cannot be def defining the corresI sensitive rules. There is no point other concepts whic that there is such a phenomenon itself, for its adequate d, order will be mainl} that Sanskrit has n lological scholarshiJ of Sanskrit scholar Sanskrit word ordel the Sanskrit gramm consider the same t last section will giv ceding two sections seek to study melt with the material st of some of the gene
S ->{NP, VP} VP->{NP, V} NP -> {Det, S, N} Note that what are 1 Berge 1958, chap. 16, a
9 8
See Saumjan 1965 and the literature mentioned ibid. 191-2, note 4.
14
INTRODUCTION
JRAMMAR
terms can nnw ture, respectively, IS Curry 0.bserves ~ up nf phrases by nmatical aspect". lre can indeed be rules and mecha:0 derive surface transfnrmatinnal . tectngrammatics to. be further ex~
greater detail by >jan distiuguishes nd the phenntype ·eJ. But while it is from genotype to (Hall 1964) that ry in several ways lease' and 'Jnhn is ut with the same :ky has therefnre has furthermnre )f strings dnes' nnt , such se.ts will in ,es can be fip.ally hnmsky's thenry, ll. It remains, for lUSt befo.rmulated 0. do. with nrder. 'ules which would md higher degree ~arded as rules of
)
nnt merely lead to. the same system nf grammatical relatinns as rules intrnducing nrdered strings do., but can also. very well cnmbiue with such trees as (i) and (ij), prnvided these trees are interpreted in a different manner, i.e., with nut pnstulating that the branches branch off in a specific nrder. We may accnrdingly cnnsider wild trees' as cnnfiguratinns of pnints such that there is nne pnint at the tnp and each nther pnint is connected with one and nnly one pniut abnve it. Trimmed trees, nn the nther hand, are wild trees with their branches branching nff in a specific nrder, i.e. trees o.f the type nnw familiar in the literature nn generative grammar. In wild trees the pniuts dnminated by a nnde cnnstitute a set; iu trimmed trees the pniuts dnminated by a no.de cnnstitute an nrdered sequence. As no.ted befnre, grammatical relatinns (and also. sa/flbandha) can be defined fo.r wild trees as well as fnr trimmed trees. On the other hand, since wild trees are especially appro.priate fnr symbnlizing rules which intro.duce sets, cnntext-sensitive rules cannnt be defined fnr wild trees. But again there is no. difficulty iu defining the cnrrespnndiug rules fnr sets, which cnuld be called companysensitive rules. There is no point in introducing wild trees, company-sensitive rules and nther co.ncepts which are unfamiliar to. liuguists unless it is fairly prnbable that there is such a thing as free wnrd o.rder to. acco.unt fnr. Mnrenver, this pheno.mennn itself, o.nce fo.und and analysed, may suggest specific metho.ds for its adequate descriptinn. The fnllnwiug investigatinn into. free wo.rd nrder will be mainly cnnfined to Sanskrit. This has the additio.nal advantage that Sanskrit has no.t o.nly been the o.bject nf Western liuguistic and philnlo.gical schnlarship fnr at least nne century, but has also. been the nbject o.f Sanskrit schnlarship for at least two millennia. In the second section, Sanskrit word order will" accnrdingly be considered as it has been studied by the Sanskrit grammarians and theorists nf language. The third section will cnnsider the same topic as studied by Western Sanskritists. The fnurth and last section will give a summary and formulate conclusions from the precediug two. sectio.ns, which at first sight seem strangely iuco.mpatible; it will seek to. study metho.ds o.f linguistic descriptio.n that can deal adequately with the material studied; and finally it will seek to. contribute to the solution of some of the general problems mentioned in the present Introduction.
9 Note that what are here called 'wild trees' are a variety studied by mathematicians: see Berge 1958. chap. 16, and Ore 1962, chap. 4 (I owe these references to Barron Brainerd).
15
INDIAN T
CHAPTER II
I~DIAN
THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
,
)
The term' Sanskrit grammarians' is generally used to refer to the adherents of the science of vyiikarava (literally, 'analysis'). They may be grouped into several schools, the most important of which is the school of paI).ini. The present problem however requires us to make some excursions beyond the confines of vyiikarava proper into the linguistic speculations first of the Vedic ritualists and second of the ritualist philosophers of the Mjmamsa. Members of any of these three groups will be referred to as 'Indian theorists' or 'Sanskrit theorists'. Some attention must now be devoted to each of these three groups, to the sources that will be quoted later, and to the background of these sources. The three groups will be referred to as (a) Vedic ritualists, (b) grammarians, and (c) Mlmamsa philosophers. (a) The Vedic ritualists evolved the siitra style which constitutes a unique, and at the same time one of the most characteristic manifestations of Sanskrit literature (for an excellent survey of this style see Renou 1963). The term sulra or 'thread' denotes a rule or aphorism, or a text which consists of rules or aphorisms; in the latter sense the term is generally written with a capital, as Sutra. These rules are often formulated in a very concise manner. This is, for example, the case in Pal)ini's grammar, where the siitras come to resemble algebraic formulas (as noted already by Whitney, quoted above, page 3; for further details see Staal 1965a). The odd combinations that may result from such concision are referred to in the following pun on the double meaning of siitra (quoted by Staal 1963a, 32 = 1965d, 115): 'No wonder that the girl strings together glass, gems, and gold on one thread. Even paI).ini, who ought to have known better, combined dog, youth and king of the Gods in one rule.' The earliest siilras were the ritual sutras. The authors of the still earlier BrahmaI).a literature had engaged in iuterpretations of the Vedic ritual and in related speCUlations which developed further in a metaphysical direction, e.g., in the Upani~ads. The authors of the ritual siilras, on the other hand, confine themselves to minute and painstaking descriptions of the details of 16
the ritual. One of th, or chanting of Vedi ritual itself (see e.g. to deal with the rec' Pratisakhya literatu each of the Vedicscl The Pratisakhya lit. probably earliest tn lJ.kpratisakhya. It is is referred to as s lJ.kpriitisiikhya, imr White Yajurveda. ! vaveda. The Samav to music, possesses lations between ver accents and tones. assumed. The PratiSakhya combination (sandh 1929 and Allen 195. the analysis of syll' and sentences. Fro said that the study primarily to meet tl it" (Brollgh 1953, !( literature that is ha . It is important t literature was the c implies that the al language as such, b' in particular in the We shall quote fr khya, which was C0 quote from the Ni. which may be assi! the PratiSakhya te, century?'). A later contains a gramm; Nirukta. 1
According to Sarup
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
N SANSKRIT
or to the adherents 1y be grouped into Dol of pal]ini. The mions beyond the .ations first of the of the Mlmaljlsa. .8
'Indian theorists'
evoted to each of r, and. to the back·ed to as (a) Vedic ers. nstitutes a unique,
;tations of Sanskrit u 1963). The term ch consists offules itten with a capital, lCise manner. This 'ras come to resem
M
Ited above, page 3; ns that.may result ,un on :the couble 5): ~ems,
and gold on
one thread. mbined dog, youth Gods in one rule.' of the still earlier te Vedic ritual and Lphy~ical direction, on the other hand, lS of the details of
the ritual. One of the most important features of Vedic ritual is the recitation or chanting of Vedic texts; this had become almost as complicated as the ritual itself (see e.g. Staal 1961). Special siilra texts were therefore composed to deal with the recitation of the Veda. The resulting literature is called the Pratisakhya literature, and consists of a number of texts, in principle one for each ofthe Vedic schools (as the name derived from Stikhd 'school' indicates). The Pratisakhya literature may be placed in the period 500-150 B.C. The probably earliest treatise is that of the J3.gveda, and is therefore called the lJ.kpriitiSiikhya. It is written in verse but possesses siitra characteristics and is referred to as such (see Renou 1963, 201, note 9). Apart from the ]J.kpriitiSiikhya, important Pratisakbya texts are attached to the Black and White Yajurveda. Similar texts, partly overlapping, belong to the· Atharvaveda. The Samaveda, which consists in part of verses of the J3.gveda set to music, possesses a number of related texts which deal e.g. with the correlations between verse and melody and the connected correlations between accents and tones. - The existence of other Pratisakhya texts may be· assumed.
The Pratisakhya literature deals primarily with the rules of euphonic combination (sandhi). Their phonological content is described e.g. in Varma 1929 and Allen 1953. Special attention is paid in the Pratisakhya literature to the analysis of syllables, accents, compounds, and the boundaries of words and sentences. From these texts Indian linguistics developed. When it is said !hat the study of lan~uage in India "was undertaken in the first place primarily to meet the needs of Vedic ritnal and the text material required by it" (Brough 1953, 161, and cf. Emeneau 1955, lSI) it is mainly the Pratisakhya literature that is had in mind. It is important to observe that the object of study of the Pratisakhya . literature was the corpus of Vedic texts, which was transmitted orally. This implies that the authors of these texts were not interested in the Vedic language as such, but in the utterances handed down in the Vedic corpus and in particular in the Vedic school to which they belonged. We shall quote from the probably earliest and most important ]J.kpriitiStikhya, which was commented upon by Uvata (ofuncertaiu date). We shall also quote from the Nirukta, a work dealing primarily with Vedic etymology, . which may be assigned to au early date within the same period as that of the Pratisakhya texts. The Nirukta was commented upon by Durga (13th century?l). A later work which provides a list of Vedic deities but also contains a grammatical section,. the Brhaddevatii, partly depends on the Nirukta. 1
According to Sarup 1920, 50.
17
INDIAN T
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
(b) The grammatical tradition antedates Piil).ini, but Piil).ini's grammar (which refers to several of its lost predecessors) is the oldest extant, and continues to be the most important and complete Sanskrit grammar. It consists of eight chapters or adhyaya and is therefore generally called the A$ladhyayi. The chapters consist in all of about 4000 short rules called siltr~. Each chapter consists, moreover, of four quarters or pdda, and the rules are numbered consecutively from the beginning of each pada. It is therefore customary to refer to each rule with the help of three numerals, the first denoting the chapter, the second the quarter of that chapter, and the third the siilra of that quarter (e.g., 104.80 for the 80th siitra of the fourth pada of the first ad/zyaya). The 'object of Pal).ini's grammar was the complete description of Sanskrit as the spoken. language (bha~a) of his time and, possibly to a more limited extent, of the Vedic language (chandas) (Renou 1967,). The date of paJ.lini is quite uncertain, though he is often placed in the 4th or 5th century B.C. 2 It has been a matter of some dispute whether the grammar of PiiJ.lini was earlier or later than the fJ.kpratisakhya (cf. below, page 21). Whereas the question in how far the Vedic language (chandas) is dealt with in
~aJ)ini's
grammar has also been much discussed, no special attention
seems so far to have been given to another fundamental difference between the Priitisakhya literature and the grammatical tradition. Whereas the authors of the former are, as we have seen, mainly interested in the corpus
of the Vedic texts, the grammarians were interested in the language itself, whether Vedic or contemporary ('spoken'). The phonetic. treatises belonging to the Atharvaveda may in this respect form a kind of transition between the other Pratisakhya texts and the works of the grammarian. (cf. Renou 1947, 82-3, 224-5). The general difference in outlook and method between Vedic ritualists and grammarians implies that the former were mainly interested in utterances, the latter in sentences. We have already had occasion to observe that the grammarians stressed the infinity of the expressions of language (above, page 5, and note 3). We shall furthermore see that they did not hesitate' to construct even Vedic sentences which were not known from the corpus of utterances. The Vedic ritualists were not interested in such constructions. (Incidentally, it may be noted that their lack of interest was better motivated than that of those modern linguists who defend a similar point of view on account of a certain misguided form of empiricism.) PaJ.lini's main commentator was Pataiijali in his Mahabha~ya, a voluminous
work which is the m knowledge of earl) Mahiibha~ya may b, comments upon Pfu).i (v(irllika) are only tradition continued pressive lineage of c NagojI - or Nagesa . the present day. This is not the pI, PiilJ.ini's grammatica
and illustrated in tI Piil).ini utilized a var ficially introduced rr the object-language; "grammarians rejoic
over the birth of a eluding anuvrtti 're(
where they need no ordering of the rule, the siilras, the task ( and how apparent i1 that .PaJ.lini's gramrr of Sanshit (as has reference to the latt, . suggested). We shall We shall quote fro Siddluintakaumudi b: (c) The Mimal]lsa c the BrahmaJ.las and' ritual interpretation respectively. Two 0: trends in a more S 'prior investigation' ,
briefly, Mim1il]lsii
extensive developme See Renou 1967, and' The relationship betwc by Kielhom (1876).
3 2 The literature on the subject is referred to by Renou 1967. and in other works by the same author, quoted there.
18
C
investigation' or Ve(
4
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
GRAMMAR
Pa1)ini's grammar oldest extant, and >anskrit grammar. ~enerally called the short rules called rs Of piida, and the \ )f each piida. It is . three numerals, the .t chapter, and the ,iitra of the fourth
ription of Sanskrit to a more limited i7,). The date of
4th or 5th century of PaJ)ini Ige 21). (chandas) is dealt LO special attention difference between ion. Whereas the !Sted in the corpus .he language itself, treatises belonging ,sition between the LS (cf. Re:lOn 1947, .1Od between Vedic , mainly interested )ccasion to observe ~rammar
;sions of language
;ee tha:, they did were -not known
, not interested in leir lack of interest ists who defend a od form of empiri~ya,
a voluminous
work which is the main source for our interpretation of pa!).ini and for our knowledge of early Indian linguistics and theories of language. The Mahtibhti~ya may be assigned to the second century B.C. 3 Pataiijali .also comments upon Pa1;I.ini's successor Katyayana, whose 'rules ofinterpretation' (vtirttika) are only known from the Mahtibhti~ya itself.' The pa!).inian tradition continued in India - though not uninterrruptedly - with an impressive lineage of commentators, often original scholars themselves (e.g., Nagojl- or Nagesa - Bhatta in the 18th century) and has remained alive to the present day . This is not the place to give a description even of the main features of PalJini's grammatical system. This system will be frequently drawn upon and illustrated in the following pages. It may be sufficient to state that Pii!).ini utilized a variety of technical terms and special elements of an artificially introduced meta-language, carefully distinguished from elements of the object-language; that the economy criterion (cf. the often quoted maxim "grammarians rejoice over the saving of the length of half a short vowel as over the birth of a son") led him to adopt numerous special devices, including anuvrtti 'recurrence' (of elements of earlier rules in later Tilles, where they need not be mentioned explicitly) and, accordingly, a specific ordering of the rules; and that special meta-rules (paribhti~ti) occur among the siitras, the task of which is to lay down how the rules are to be applied and how apparent inconsistencies are eliminated. It may be re-emphasized that Pa!).ini's grammar is not confined to the phonology and morphology of Sanskrit (as has been suggested), but includes symax, and that with reference to the l1ttter it does not adopt a taxonomic outlook (as has been suggested). We shall return to this below (pages 36 and following). We shall quote from paI).ini and Pataiijali, and also from the 17th-century Siddhantakaumudi by Bhattoji Dik~ita .. ' (c} The Mimal]1sa constitutes a later development. In the Vedic literature, the Brahma!).as and the Upa~ads may be said to deal to some extent with ritual interpretation cum speculation, and general metaphysical speculation, respectively. Two of the later systems of philosophy continue these two trends in a more systematic and rationalistic way: the pilrva-mimiilJ'lsd 'prior investigation', karma-mimiiYflsii 'investigation into (ritual) activity' Of, briefly, Mimarpsa on the one hand, and the uttara-mimtil!1scl 'posterior investigation' or Vedanta on the other hand. Whereas the Vedanta and its extensive developments have attracted relatively much attention in the West 3
in other works by 'the
4
See Renoll 1967, and below, note 19. The relationship between Katyayana and PatafljaIi has been studied in exemplary fashion
by
Kielhom (1876). 19
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
and continue to have a certain appeal, the seemingly arid prior MIma1j1sa contains in many respects more interesti..."1g and original ideas - ideas,
moreover, for which it would not be easy to find counterparts outside the Indian tradition. It has been realized that the Vedanta itself cannot be adeqnately understood without a knowledge of the MIma1j1sa ("Sailkara est tout pen;'tre de Mimamsa": Renou 1951, III). - For good introductions to the MInia1j1Sa system see e.g. Jha 1942, Hiriyanna 1932, chapter XII, and cf. Edgerton 1929 and Kunhan Raja 1952. The MIma1j1sa has most probably developed from the ritnal Sutras and especially from the rules of interpretation (paribhd~d-siitra) attached to some of these Sutras. But the Mimamsa investigation is more general and theoretical than the. investigations of the ritual SUlras. It was originally realistic in outlook and technical in execution, and only later developed into a full-fledged philosophical system. It combines trends which seem paradoxical at first sight, e.g. an almost excessive concern with orthopraxy 'right activity' (as distinct from orthodoxy: 'right opinion') with a frankly atheistic outlook. This is apparent e.g. from the doctrine that the deities invoked in the course of the sacrifices are essentially grammatical datives. We shall see that the MImar!1Sa philosophers often return to the themes which were discussed by the earlier Vedic ritualists. Given the importance of the Vedic texts for the Vedic ritual, it stands to reason that the MIma1j1sa philosophers devoted much speculation to the linguistic phenomena of the Veda. Their relation to the grammatical tradition . deserves special comment. Though these philosophers, like their predecessors, dealt with Vedic utterances rather than with the sentences of classical or spoken Sanskrit, their researches were motivated by a very original theory about the nature 'of these utterances (cf. Edgerton 1928, Staal 1962). Because of this and especially in the field of syntax, MIma1j1sa was in a position to supplement the investigations of the grammarians. Renou has characterized the difference between vydkaral)o and MIma1j1sa as that between padamfmiif!1sii 'investigation of words' and .vdkyamimdf{1sa 'investigation of sentences' (1960, 66; 1961, 129). It is trne that the grammarians were not interested in the surface arrangements of words in sentences; but they were interested in external sandhi on the one hand, and in the abstract underlying structures of sentences called sarrzbandha on the other. While external sandhi is a secondary phenomenon in many other languages, 'syntax' has in the study of modern languages come to denote the study of the superficial arrangements of words, as indeed the etymology of the term 'syntax' itself suggests. And so it is no more than correct to say that the Sanskrit grammarians were not interested in sentences in as far as sentences are considered merely as arrangements of words. But it would not be 20
INDIAN TH
correct to say that 1 The philosophers , tributed to Jairoini as period 300 B.C. - 300 first commentator
Wl
assigned to the 5th c others, including the vdrttika as well as in As may be seen fro relations between th Though the third grc rather of the purely: first group deals on cordingly many sch, Nirukta, though Thi, 1935). It must be en: (e.g., non-Pal)inian " be quoted below. It n with the work of cc original thought may Word order will n, three headings: (A) Patai'ijali; (C) Jaimin A. 1!KP R"
Most of the Vedic t, forms: the sarrzhitdpd word recitation', The
stitutes the first of a s sacred text from los differ from each oth· composition and ace
the following: Sarrzhitdpdtha: / 6l'va. Padapdtha: / (z / u 'the i
depth 5 Cf.Apte 1963 25 , 1:" sentences, and lays dOWJ krit and other language!
GRAMMAR
rid prior Mlma!)1sa inal ideas - ideas,
;erparts outside the self cannot be adei ("SaIikara est tout ntroductions to the, oapter XII, and cf. ; .e ritual Sutras and -siitra) attached to 3
more general and
:. It was originally .ater developed into . which seem pararn with orthopraxy on') with a frankly .ne that the deities mmatical dati-,es. turn to the themes : ritual, it stands to speculation to the le grammatical tra>sophers, like. their ith the sentences of otivated by a very :cf. Edgerton 1928,. ntax, Mlmarpsa was :ammarians. Renou i Mlmamsa as that vakyam'il?lQlf1Sa 'inlat the grammarians vords in sentences;
e hand, and in the ondha on the other. ,ny other languages, denote the study of 'mology of the term rect to say that the n as far as sentences
:ut it would not be
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
correct to say that they were not interested in sentence construction.:S The philosophers of the Mimiif[lsii look upon the Mimiif[lsii-siitra attributed to Jaimini as their oldest source; beyond assigning this work to the period 300 B.c. - 300 A.D., determination of its date seems hazardous. The first commentator was Sabara, whose Mimiif[lsiisiitrabha$ya is sometimes assigned to the 5th century A.D. It is in turn commented upon by many others, including the 8th-century scholar Kumarila Bhatia in his Tantraviirttika as well as in other works . As may be seen from this short survey the chronological and historical relations between these three groups are sometimes hard to ascertain. Though the third group is in some respects a continuation of the first, or rather of the purely ritual sutras which accompany works of the first, the first group ·deals on the whole with older material than the second. Accordingly many scholars place Pal)ini after the IJkpriitisiikhya and the Nirukta, though Thieme has argued that Pal)ini must be earlier (Thieme 1935). It must be emphasized, finally, that many other important sources (e.g:, non-Pal)inian works) have not been mentioned because they will not be quoted below. It may also be worth noting that while we are often dealing with the work of commentators, this does not imply that no important original thought may be found in it .. Word order wiII now be studied as dealt with in these works, and under three headings; (A) J!.kpriitiSiikhya, Nirukta, Brhaddevatii; (B) Pal,lini and Patafija1i; (C) Jaimini, Sabara and Kumarila Bhaila. A. e.KPRATISAKHYA, NIRUKTA, Be.HADDEVATA
Most of the Vedic texts have been handed down orally in iwo traditional forms: the sa'!7hitdptitha 'continuous recitation' and the padapii!ha 'word for word recitation'. The composition of the padapii!ha at a very early date 'con-
stitutes the first of a series of extraordinary precautions taken to preserve the sacred text from loss or corruption. The saf[lhitiipii!ha and the padapii!ha differ from each other principally with respect to external sandhi, nominal composition and accentuation. An example from the B.gveda (10.127.2) is the following: Saf[lhitiipii!ha: / orvaprii timartyii nivtito devy udvtitab / Padapii!ha: / d / u/'u / apriib / timartyii / nivtitab / devi / ut'vtitab /
'the immortal goddess has pervaded the wide space, the depths, and the heights'. 5 Cf. Apte 1963 25 , 1: "'Syntax' in English deals with the mode of arranging words in sentences, and lays down rules for the proper and correct arrangement of words. In Sanskrit and other languages that are rich in inflexions, Syntax has not this definite scope."
21
INDIAN T
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
The initial task of the PriitiSiikhya literature is to teach how the sal!1hitiipii{ha may be established from the padapii{ha. The given order of words is explicitly recognized as the point of departure, e.g., in ]J.kpriitiSiikhya 2.7 which states: iinupiirvyelJa sandhin '(one should make) the sandhi combination according to the word order'. I~ oral recitation it is easy to forget one or two words from the padapii{ha. The' ]J.kpriitiSiikhya therefore described another mnemonic device, called kramapti{ha 'serial recitation'. If the padapii{ha be written: I a I b I c I d I···, the kramapii{ha becomes: la b/bc/cd/··· For example, the above line yields: Kramapti{ha:
But from this result derived. ]J.kpriitiStikl padasandhyadarSanii is not in accordance
the dividing word a (of the sal!1hitiipti{hG to be supplied frorr well known from I omitted from the kl pal!1 niditam I and tI The ]J.kpriitiSiikhy to the commentator
I oru I urvapriib I aprii amartyii I amartyii nivatal; I nivato devi I devy udvatab I
The kramapti{ha is the latest modification recognised at the time of the ]J.kprtitiSiikhya. 6 But other modifications (vikrti) were developed later (e.g., ja{ii: I a bib a I a b II b c I c bib c II c did c I c d II), and many continue to be recited in different parts of India up to the present day (StaarI961). Special devices were introduced to mark a compound word or the end of a sentence. In its eleventh chapter the ]J.kprtitiMkhya gives rules for the construction of the kramapiilha from the sal?1hittipii{ila. In a few cases special problems arise on account of the order of words. In B.gveda 5.2.7, where a reference OCCNS to the fe.mous myth of Sunal)sepa (literally 'dog penis'), who was bought as a sacrificial victim at the price of a thousand cows,
/ sunascit I ci.
In other words, he padapti{ha, derived
variant recitation. j
of Soma: Sal!1hitiipiilha:"I dvt! dharl Padapii{ha:. / dvt! daivy
'Join
the two traditional versions are at variance: Sa~,hittipii{ha:
Padapii{ha:
enter
I sunasciccMpa~, n{ditG1?1 sahtisriid yiipiid amuFico tJSami~{a hi ~ab I evasmcid agne vi mumugdhi pasiin .. .j I sunabsepam I cit I n[,ditam I sahtisrtit I yiipiit I amuFicab I tiSami~{a I hi I sab I eva I asmtit / agne I vi I 111umugdhi ! paMn f. .. 'Even Sunal)Sepa, who wac tied for ·a thousand, you have released from the sacrificial post, for he was arrested; so release us too from our fetters,
0
Agni .... '
If the kramapii{ha were constructed from the padapii{ha according to the rules, the result would be:
I suna(JSepal!1cit /
them Here again the C( rived from a regula follows in ]J.kpriiti vyaveta1fl ca saha T recited in accordan
the dividing word t Uvata explains th and the following v becomes: / dvt! janti I jl
cid n{ditam I nidital!1 sahtisriit / ...
The J!.kpriitisiikhya asserts (11.66) that the krama "does not accomplish anything else" (anyasiidhako na); this may indicate that other vikrtis were already current, though not officially recognized at the time. These vikrtis and other specimens of Vedic recitation are available on two LP records 'The Four Vedas' (Ethnic Folkways Library).
saf!1sarrz daivJ
6
22
j
The question ari,
7
anuvrtti: see e.g. Ren(
}RAMMAR
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
h how the salflhiorder of words is /!.kpratiStikhya 2.7 mdhi combination
om the padapa{ha. ) nic device, called : / a / b / c / d / ... ,
But from this result the order of words of the salflhitapafha could never be derived. f!.kpriitiSdkhya 11.13 proposes the following solution: .aniinupiirvye padasandhyadarsaniit / padavyavetalfl ca padal]1 vyavayi ca 'if the word order is not in accordance (with the padapii!ha), the word divided by another and the dividing word are passed over, since otherwise the sandhi of the words (of the salflhitiipafha) is not shown' (the word at/yante 'are passed over' has to be supplied from 11.3, which has at/yate 'is passed over': a technique well known from Pal!ini 7). That is to say, both s([na/zsepam and cit are omitted from the kramapa!ha, which therefore merely states: / siinasciccMpal]1 niditam / and then continues with / niditalfl sahlisrat / etc. The f!.kpriitisakhya also mentions an alternative (11.14), which according to the commentator Uvata results in:
11aiz / nivala devf /
it the time of the 'eloped later (e.g., ld many continue day (Staal 1961). word or the end gives rules for the 1. In a few cases In B-gveda 5.2.7, epa (literally 'dog fa thousand cows, munco
asami~!a
/ s([,"ascit / cicchepam / sepanniditam / etc.
In other words, here the kramapiifha is established from a hypothetical padopa{ha, derived from the sOl]1hitiipii{ha. The question arises what should happen if other words precede such a variant recitation. An example occurs in B-gveda 9.86.42, a chant in praise of Soma: Salflhitapii{ha: / dvd janii yalayann antar ;yate narii ca salflsam daivyalfl ca dhartari / Padapafha: / dvd / jdna / yatayan / antd!; / iyate / naraM~1sam / ca / ddivyam / ca / dhartari /
'Joining the two kinds of beings [i.e., human and divine], he enters between human and d,ivine invocation, to s'upport them'.
hi
VOpat / amuiicab / I vi / mumugdhi /
Jusand-,,..yoU have was arrested; so
according to the
nplish anything else" . current, though not f Vedic recitation are brary).
Here again the correct word order of the salflhitapafha could not be derived from a regnlarly constructed kramapii{ha. This problem is solved as follows in f!.kpratiStikhya 11.15: padiinupzirvyel;la sapilrva ii tatas tatn vyavetarrz ca salta, vyavayi ca 'if it is preceded by other words, these are recited in accordance with word order, and subsequently the divided and the dividing word together (with the preceding and the following words)'. Uvaia explains this by specifying that for the above example the preceding and the following words are / iyate / and / daivyam /. Thus the kramapii{ha becomes: / dvd janii / janii yiitayan / yiitayann anla!; / an tar iyate / iyate nara ca Sa~1Sal]1 daivyam / ddivyal]1 ca / ca dhartari /
'1
anuvrtti: see e.g. Renou 1957, s.v.
23
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
INDIAN T
The term aniinupurvyasGlTlhitii was used for these rare sequences of the sGlTlhitiipiitha where the word order is not in accordance with that of the padapiitha. Elsewhere the sa~1hitii may be referred to as iinupt1rvyasa1]1hitii. What is to be retained from these discussions is that the Vedic ritualists paid great attention to the fixed word order of the two traditional recensions o[\he Vedic text. In the few cases where these two were at variance. special precautions had to be taken so that in neither version the correct word order was lost. This leads to a conclusion which may startle those Vedic philologists who study the Veda in order to arrive at a description of the Vedic language. For the Vedic ritualists of the Priitisiikhya period the Vedic language was an object of study only in as far as it was embodied in the Vedic tradition. Accordingly they regarded the order of words in the Vedic language as fixed. (We need not here consider another matter. viz., that also historically speaking it might be said that the word order in Vedic is less free than it is in classical Sanskrit.) This also applies to the Mjmal]lsa. All this illustrates that from the time of the Pratisakhya literature the Vedic language, apart from its embodiment in the Vedic texts, was hardly known. The texts were learned by heart, applied in the ritual and handed down by oral tradition. Moreover, the meaning of mallY Vedic passages must already at that time have been lost. The ritualists-linguists were interested, accordingly, in the utterances of the Vedic texts, not in the sentences of the Vedic language. This entire development explains an otherwise very curiolls controversy which since the Nirukta is known as 'the controversy of Kautsa'. Kautsa may have been one of the earliest sceptics known, for his main thesis was that the Veda was without meaning: dllarthakii ,,,antriib 'the Vedic mantras are meaningless'. Apart from scepticism, however, other factors may have been involved. Reno,", has drawn attention to the fact that one of the Priitisiikhyas of the Atharvaveda is also attributed to Kautsa (Renou 1960, 68). The Atharvaveda is largely a repository of magical practices. It is therefore not surprising that those ritualists who treated the mantras as charms, were hardly in a position to regard them at the same time as'linguistically meaningful utterances. Katre, on the other hand, regarded Kautsa as a ritualist who wanted to provide a rational foundation for the ritual (ibid.; cf. also Thieme 1931,27). The Nirukta strongly objected to Kautsa's revolutionary doctrines and attempted to refute his arguments. One of these is significant in the present context. Kautsa supported his thesis by reasoning from the premiss that the Vedic words are fixed and that their order is fixed: niyataviico yuktayo niyatiinupurvyii (mantriib) bhavanti 'the mantras are joined with fixed sound and fixed order' (Nirukta 1.15). The implicit argument is that if the mantras
were meaningful, tl words with the san just as in ordinary quite clear. Consid (= Samaveda 1.1): not the same as: viM, Nor is part of this speech (lake) such c go; moreover, we h near'; ahara piitram mantras. Since we ~ must be meaningle., This controversy speech as free. The, for he replies (NiruA 'this [fixed word ord indrtignf "Indra and It is not known, could easily do so, f compounds, in whic the order is fixed be with a vowel and , by PaJ;lini 2.2.33). compounds the mel should precede (this We shall see that t of the Mimal]lsa. Tl The Brhaddevatii Vedic deities as the: traditional text' (1.1) lJ.gvidhiina (1.2), wh, 10). In the grammat about the grammao Vedic text. The only contains a reference atirikta1]1 pad dadhyiid iinup
'A redundant 'word , 8
24
See below, page 48.
GRAMMAR
, sequences of the e with that of the anupiirvyasarrzhitd . he Vedic ritualists ditional recensions tt variance, special ) ::orrect word order ;
lose Vedic philolo)tion of the Vedic period the Vedic s embodied in the Nords in the Vedic ltter, viz., that also
in Vedic is less free 1maIPSa.
'hya literature the ; texts, was hardly ritual and handed ny Vedic passages nguists were inter~ in the sentences of urious controversy
of Kautsa'. Kautsa .is main thesis was
'the Vedic mantras . factors may have t that one of the .utsa (R~nou 1960, ;al practices. It is ed the m~ntras a, ~
same time as lin~ :1, regarded Kautsa .tion for the ritual
lary doctrines and cant in the present a the premiss that '1iyataviico yuktayo d with fixed sound that if the mantras
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
were meaningful, their words could be replaced by synonyms, i.e., other words with the same meaning, and the order could be changed at will, just as in ordinary speech. The Nirukta commentator Durga makes this quite clear. Consider for example, he says, the mantra ~gveda 6.16.10 (= Samaveda 1.1): dgna d yahi vitaye '0 Agni, come to the feast'. This is not the same as : vibhavaso iigaccha panaya '0 fire god, proceed to the drinking'. Nor is part of this expression the same as: d yahy dgne. But in ordinary speech (loke) such conversions are met with. There are many synonyms for go; moreover, we have goVim ab!1yaja and abhyaja gO/Jim 'drive the cow near'; ahara pdtram and jJiitram ahara 'fetch the bowl'. This is not so in mantras. Since we see that they differ from ordinary speech, the mantras must be meaningless. This controversy shows that many considered word order in ordinary speech as free. The author of the Nirukta, however, does not agree with this, for he replies (Nirukta 1.16): laukike~v apy etad yathendragni pitaputrav iti 'this [fixed word order occurs 1also in expressions of ordinary language, e.g. indriignl "Indra and Agni", pitaputrau "father and son".' It is not known whether Kautsa had followers who replied to this. We could easily do so, for both of the Nirukta's counter-examples are nominal compounds, in which the order of the members is indeed fixed. In indragni the order is fixed because in dvandva componnds the member which begins with a vowel and ends in a short a should precede (this rule is given by Pal)ini 2.2.33). In pitaputrau the order is fixed because in dvandva compounds the member which refers to what is more worthy of respect should precede (this is stated by a varttika following Pal)ini 2.2.34). We shall see that these discussions are taken up afresh by the philosophers of the MimiiIllsa. They also recur in Saya!).a's commentary on the ~gveda.8 The Brhaddevata begins with the statement that its author will list the Vedic deities as they occur samiimniiyiinupurvasa!;z 'in the sequence of the traditional text' (1.1). This expression is adopted from the Brhaddevata by the f!.gvidhiina (1.2), where it is used with regard to ritual rules (transl. Gonda, 10). In the granlmatical section of the Brhaddevata some remarks are given about the grammatical, syntactic and semantic interpretations of the Vedic text. The only passage which deals exclusively with syntactic matters, contains a reference to word order (2.100): atiriktaJ?1 padaJ?1 tyaja~1 hinaJ?1 vakye niveSayet I dadhyiid anupiirvlJ?1 ca kalpayet II
viprakr~!aJ?1
ca saJ?1-
'A redundant word should be rejected, while one that is lacking one should 8
See below, page 48.
25
INDIAN 'I
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
introduce into the sentence; and one that is far removed one should bring into juxtaposition, and should [then] arrange the regular sequence [of the words]' (Macdonell's translation). Since the construction of a specific arrangement is here insisted upon, it seeps that this passage, at least for the language ofthe Vedas, presupposes a regular word order. This is explained most satisfactorily by assuming once more that the ritualists-linguists were interested not in the sentences of the Vedic language, but in the utterances of the Vedic corpus. We shall study other supporting evidence for this view. B. PA1,!INI AND PATANJALI
When entering the domain of vyakarava proper we are no longer concerned with ritualists interested in preserving the Vedic tradition, but with linguists studying both the spoken language (bhli~li) and, possibly to a more limited extent, the Vedic language (chandas) (Renou 1967). A few remarks may first be made about the word orderin Piil!ini's metalanguage, i.e. in the A~!adhyayi itself. Many rules of the grammar prescribe a substitution. As we have noted elsewhere (Staal 1965a) Piil)ini uses the case terminations in a technical metalinguistic sense for expressing what is
substituted for what, and in what context. Utilizing context-sensitive rules, substitution of the type Piil)ini is interested in may be expressed as: a[b--+c]d
(19)
where c is the substitute for b, when preceded by a and followed by d. Piil)ini expresses this by:
a + Abl. ending
b+ Gen. ending
c + Nom. ending
d + Loc. ending. (20)
As in uninfiected languages in general, the order of the elements in the artificial expression (19) is fixed, since their function depends on their place in the expression. The order of the elements in (20), on the other hand, is free, since their function is fully determined by the respective case terminations. It has been noted that in Piil)ini's grammar in general the order of words is relatively free. Even the order of members of the dvandva compounds (which yielded the counter-examples provided by the Nirukta) is not fixed
and sometimes deviates· from that prescribed by the grammatical rules themselves. Renou, who has devoted a short study to the word order of the A#adhyayi (Renou 1955) states that "I'ordre des mots chez P., d'une maniere generale, est d6routant. II y a des tendances precises, rnais rarement
26
sans exceptions, et IE After studying a fe general cases (e.g., technical term), ReI dans certaines ampl A rather celebrat. this occasion the c, siitra of the gral11l vrddhi. 9 The comm newly defined techr indeed obtain in tl technical term guva term (saf[ljiia) whid cal subject of the si term' which is the r what holds for the guage of grammar: applies to ordinar: 39 line 10).) After suggesting final answer: etad < be forgiven for this the expression mm certain fame. This only a technical te
meaning 'growth', mahata/:l sastraugha galadini hi slistrlivi cdcihyettiras ca vrd, iOllsness, uses tqe v
science for the sak, piciousness at the bt and prosperous' (ei This discussion 9 Cardona (1966, 311), criticised the fonnalisa, justified, however, in v i, U, r and I' and of 1.3.1 own terms: p. 309) 'tha . have the same numbel
order'. 10
See also Scharfe 196
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
GRAMMAR
ia) Pa"ini uses the expressing what is
sans exceptions, et les exceptions sont loin de se reduire ades lois coherentes". After studying a few special terms (chandasi, vibhti~ii, nityam) and a few general cases (e.g., introduction or definition of an anubandha or other technical term), Renal! concluded that "l'ordre des mots chez P., au moins dans certaines amples categories, comportait une part de Iiberte". A rather celebrated case deserves a somewhat more detailed treatment; on this occasion the commentator Pataiijali becomes quite explicit. The first siitra of the grammar, vrddhir iidaic (1.1.1), defines the technical term vrddhi. 9 The commentators accept as usual practice in such cases that a newly defined technical term is put at the end of its definition. This does indeed obtain in the next rule, aden gUQa/z (1.1.2), which introduces the technical term gUQa. The general convention is that the technical 'defining' term (saf[ljiiii) which is the subject introduced by the siitra and the grammatical subject of the siitra, follows what it denotes, i.e., the saf[ljiiin or 'defined term' which is the predicate of the siilra (Mahtibhii~ya, ad IOC.).'0 (Note that what holds for the object language need not be laid down for the metalanguage of grammar: na yathti lake lathii vyiikara~e 'it is not so that what applies to ordinary speech applies to grammar itself' (ed. Kielhorn, I, 39 line 10).) After suggesting various solutions for this puzzle Patanjali gives as a
text-sensitive rules,
final answer: etad ekam aciiryasya mmigaliirtha1]'l mr$yatdm. 'let the teacher
pressed as:
be forgiven for this once on account of auspiciousness'. From this passage, the expression mangaltirtham 'on account of auspiciousness' acquired a cert~in fame. This must be explained as follows. The word vrddhi is not only a technical term but also a common word of the object language, meaning 'growth', 'success'. So Pataiijali coutinues: miiftgalika iiciiryo mahata/z .iiistraughasya maizgaliirthaf[l vrddhiSabdamiidita/z prayuizkte / mangaliidfni hi .iiistriiQi prathante virapuru~akiiQi bhavanty iiyu~mat puru~akiiQi ctidhyettiras ca vrddhiyuktii yathii syur iii 'the teacher, intent on auspiciousness, uses tile word vrddhi at the beginning of his great compilation of science for the sake of auspiciousness. For only such works as have auspiciousuess at the beginning thrive well and make mankind strong, long-lived and prosperous' (ed. Kielhorn, I, 40 lines 6-9). This discussion makes clear that the Sanskrit grammarians needed a
lone should bring Lr sequence [of the re insisted upon, it
,das, presupposes a.
. ) . by assummg once ~
he sentences of the us. We shall study
o longer concerned I, but with linguists I to a more limited
.er in Pal)ini's meta~ grammar prescribe
(19)
md followed by d. d + L?c. ending. (20)
the elements in the ,ends on"~heir place 'n the other hand, :spective case termithe order of words 'vandva compounds 'irukta) is not fixed
grammatical rules the word order of "ots chez P., d'uue ; :ises, mais rarement
9 Cardona (1966, 311), whilst largely adopting the methods introduced in Staa11965a, has criticised the formalisation of the definition of vrddhi (ibid., 66). This fonnalisation seems justified, however, in view of 1.1.3 iko gw.tavrddlzi 'gulJa and vrddhi occur in the place of i, ll, rand!, and of 1.3.10 yathiisomkhyam anuddab samiiniim, which specifies (in Cardona's own terms: p. 309) 'that when items of a subsequent enumeration in a rule of replacement have the same number as items previously enumerated in the fule, they' are related in
order', 10
See also Scharfe 1961, 21 sq., which however has to be used with caution (Staal 1963b).
27
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
.special convention for the meta-language in order to determine the word order in a case where ambiguity might result; we shall return to this (below, page 68). It is not quite clear whether either or both of the following are ambiguous: what are the subject and predicate of the sentence, or what are)ts topic and comment (for the distinction cf. Staal 1967a); this is irreloYant in the present context. But it is important to see what Patanjali has further to say about this subject in general. In the course of the discussion Patanjali has considered another argument, which does not seem to be taken quite seriously in the grammatical context though it is stated as valid for the spoken language (cf. again the maxim just quoted: na yatha loke tatha vyakarm;ze 'it is not so that what applies to ordinary speech applies to grammar itself'). We need not pay attention to the word order in the szltra, says Patanjali, because: neha prayoganiyama arabhyate 'restrictions on usage are not here clung to',11 This he explains as follows: sa~1skrtya sal[lskrtya padany uts!yyante te~al[l yathe~!am abhisa~1bandho bhavati i tad yatha ahara patral[l patram cihareti 'words are generated in accordance with grammatical rules, but their order [abhisGl?1bandha] is free, as in ahara patram and patram ahara "fetch the bowl'" (ed. Kielhorn, I,
39, lines 18-9). The' example we met with in the commentary on the Nirukla is used again here to illustrate the free order of words in ordinary language. 12 \ Patanjali refers to the freedom of word order by using the term yathe~!am ,. 'according to wish, as you wish'. In similE.r contexts this is also referred to I
by such terms as kamaciira, yathakamam 'according to desire'. In this
.)1
passage, then, Patanjali clearly regards word order as free. Which particular order is used in a given utterance is a matter of 'usage' (prayoga). Before studying additional evidence in this respect from the Mahtibha~ya, we shall return to Pal).ini and see whether he has anything to say about word order in the Sanskrit object-language. First, it strikes us that the terms met with before, anupiirvya and iinupiirvi, are used in a different sense. The grammarians generally use anupiirvi, not to refer to word order but to denote the order in which the grammatical rules are applied (Renou 1957, s.v.).
The order in which the grammatical rules are actually given is in fact much more important than has even recently been claimed (see· Staal 1966c in Subrahmanya Sastri (1960, 145 note 3), erroneously identifying usage with syntax, concludes that "PaQini does not deal with Syntax but only with Phonology and Morphology". For niyama cf. also Thieme 1931, 30. 12 Note that the examples with the Imperative ahara 'fetch!' cannot be explained from Patanjali's context, but are natural in the context of the commentary on the Nirukta, where a Vedic imperative (a yahi 'come!') had just been quoted. This suggests that Patai'ijali quoted from the Nairuktas, and not vice versa (it is well known that Patai'ijali does sometimes quote from the Nirukta itself; see, e.g., SkOld 1926, ch. V). 11
28
INDIAN T
reply to Fowler 19( 'ein Nacheinander') introduced to descri1 (avyayfbhiiva) camp.
'in order of age (7)' Secondly, Pal).ini stem, suffix) and fa parts of words since 168-9). He nowhen sentence. But this d. the relation of word The commentato counter-examples. \ language used in tt (lIth century) and I century) state that Pi words (Ojihara and is partly based). Th: i.e., Pal).ini 3.1.2, 2. lays down that suffi: words. 2.2.30 (upasc with the order of ill< 2.2.31-38 (not ment The sutra 1.4.80 elements precede v, which by PaI)ini's tin independent wo'rds , and the next siitra 1. also follow the vert classical Sanskrit, th, along with his. elepha is not a Vedic quota Vedic language and The siitra 1.4.80, the language where been given a fixed p last apparent counte relation between cer
the later developme move about more fl
Western linguists in
GRAMMAR
etermine the wDrd :urn tD this (belDw, f the following are sentence, or what
1967a); this is ir-, what Patafijali has )! another argument, °ammatical context '. again the maxim lat what applies to It pay attention to ,ha prayoganiyama This he explains as 'athe$!am abhisarrzlords are generated [abhisarrzbandha] is '" (ed. Kielhorn, I, le Nirukta is used dinary language.'2 he term yalhe~tam is also referred to to desire'. In this ,. Which particular prayoga).
n the M ahtibhli~ya, hing to say about " us that the terms lifferent sense. The lrder bu~ to denote RenDu1957, s. v.): len is in fact much :see Staall9G6c in Ig usage with syntax, 'nology and Morphollot be explained from
:ltary on the Nirukta, is suggests that Patani'Il
V).
that Pataiijali does
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
reply tD FDwler 1965). PaJ)ini himself (2.1.6) uses iinupiirvya (BDehtlingk: 'ein Nacheinander') differently again, i.e., as a kind .of semantic marker intrDduced to describe the meaning .of a class of first members .of indeclinable (avyayibhiiva) cDmpDunds such as anujye~lham 'beginning with the .oldest' Dr 'in .order of age (?)' (frDm jye~tha 'eldest'). SecDndly, PaJ)ini gives many rules for the .order .of parts .of wDrds (e.g., stem, suffix) and for the order .of members .of cDmpDunds, which are also parts .of wDrds since nDminal compDunds are treated as nouns (Staal 1966a, 168-9). He nDwhere seems to give any rule fDr the order of wDrds in the sentence. But this does not imply, as we shall see, that he gives no rules for the relation of words in the sentence. The CDmmentators have nDted this and have discussed the apparent counter-examples. When commenting upon the word .order of the metalanguage used in the first siitra, such SChDlars as Kaiya(a in his Pradipa (11th century) and Haradatta in his Padamanjari (not earlier than the 13th century) state that Pal)ini never discusses the order of independent (sJiatantra) words (Ojihara and Renou 1960, 3-4, upDn which the following discussion is partly based). This is shown by refuting the apparent counter-examples, i.e., PaJ)ini 3.1.2, 2.2.30-31, 1.4.80, 3.1.40-41. The siitra 3.1.2 (paras cal lays dDwn that suffixes follDW stems, but neither of these are independent wDrds. 2.2.30 (upasarjanarrz piirvam) and 2.2.31 (rajadanliiqi~u param) deal with the order of members of nominal compDunds, and the same holds for 2.2.31-38 (not mentioned in this connexiDn). The siitra 1.4.80 (Ie priig dhatob) says that preverbs and certain other elements precede verbal roots. This is more interesting, since pre verbs, which by PaJ)ini's time behave as prefixes, CDuid to SDme extent be considered independent words since they behaved as such in Vedic., Pal)ini knew this, and'the next siilra 1.4.81 (chandasi pare'pi) states that in the Veda they may aisD follow the verb" 1 roDt. The commentators provide the examples: for classical Sanskrit, the former rule ellables us to derive niydti hastinii 'he comes along with his elephant'; the latter rule provides for Vedic yati ni hastinii. (This is not a Vedic quotation: nDte that the Sanskrit grammarians describe the' Vedic ianguage and are no longer exclusively interested in the Vedic corpus.) The sfilra 104.80, then, describes a certain stage in the development of the language where elements that earlier used to move more freely, have been given a fixed position and have been attached to other forms. In the last apparent counter-example the reverse obtains. Here Pal)ini describes a relation between certain elements in terms of a kind of suffixation, while in the later development of the language these so-called suffixes started to move about more freely. Since these suffixes are themselves verbal forms, Western linguists in their diachronistic tradition describe them as such. 29
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
Piil)ini on the other hand, finding these elements after verbal forms only, in his synchronistic manner described them as suffixes. In Western grammars this grammatical structure is known as the periphrastic perfect. l3 PiiI;lini's sittras 3.1.40 (krii ciinu pra yujyate liti) and 3.1.41 (vidtilfl kurvantv ity anygtarasytim) describe the formation for the elements derived from the veril,al root kr 'do'. Pataiijali added as and bhU "be", which in fact rarely entered into this formation in the language of the later Vedic period (Renou 1956, 72; cf. also Thieme 1956, 22). While the second sutra introduces a rather special and optional form, the first yields the general case exemplified by pacaytilfl caktira 'he did cooking', i.e., 'he cooked'. Patafijali's additional observations yield pacaytim tisa and pacaytilfl babhfiva 'he was cooking'. Note that the rule excludes the order caktira pacayam, tisa pacaytim, etc. That the later commentators considered this rule as a possible, though apparent, counter-example to their view that PiiI)ini nowhere treats word order, may show that at that time the word character of these forms was to some extent recognized. That PaI;lini specified the order (thereby exCluding cakara pticaytim or the intervention of other words) shows, however, that he regarded this process as a kind of suffixation. The commentators were accordingly right in claiming that also in this case Piil)ini was not discussing the order of words. If it he then accepted that Piil)ini nowhere discussed the order of words, the question arises whether he considered word order as free. One need not expect an explicit statement of Pal)ini to thi. effect: he is always content to enumerate rules, mostly abiding by the economy criterion, and hardly indulges in loose talk. So we shall have to turn to the commentators again, in this case to the vtirttikaktira, Kiityiiyana. We shall also see, however, that Piil)ini himself gives many rules about the relations between words in the sentence. This will clearly show that he was interested in syntactic or grammatical relations, which are quite independent of word order. At tlie same time it will become more apparent that the view that Piil)ini did not study syntax is at least partly a myth, based upon the assumption that ( syntax is the study of word order. This assumption results from neglecting i the distinction between the relation of words in a sentence (salflbandha), which certainly belongs to the deep structure, and the order of words of a sentence (abhisQf]1bandha), which may belong to the surface structure. . It has already been noted that Patafijali regarded word order as free. That this was also the view of Kiityayana follows from an explicit statement in a vtirttika, which Pataiijali quotes with approval and which he applies in order to solve a rather complicated PiiI;linian problem.
I
13
Partly similar observations with regard to the periphrastic future occur in Rocher 1965.
30
INDIAN T
The background technical. When ce arises whether rules
apply to the sounds 1.1.56 says sthtiniv, original [sthtinin 1 w' following is an exarr In 7.1.84 a simple su the substitute au, y that under certain rdjan looses its fical nal div in the abov
where the conditior substitute dyau mer< pear and we would the substitution wo' After enunciating Pal)ini gives an eXe! acab pal'Qsmin purv, with reference to a ception to the excep an example: In patl of l1, in fact COllce
since the result of i, matical. The form original and zero is t u which prevents tho tion of the ungran which applies to a is substituted for at apply to the origim the conditions reql condition); hence tt . cal form pti(aya is I The next rule, I exception expresse(
na padtintadvirvaca
means that in a r svara, savarJ)a, anu. un like the original We shall not analy
GRAMMAR
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
lerbal forms only, Western grammars perfec!.l3 Piil)ini's idarrz kurvantv ity
derived from the hich in fact rarely :dic period (Renou sillra introduces a al case exemplified
taiijali's additional 'he was cooking'. lisa pacayiim, etc. , possible, though where treats word
these forms was (there by excluding
,f
IWS,
however, that
:>mmentators were was not discussing
Ie order of words,
free. One need not always content to erion, and hardly
rD:mentators again, I1so see, however,
between words in oed in syntactic or lOrd order. At the 1at Piil)ini did not , assuwption that .Is from neglecting ence (sarrzbandha), -der of words of a lee structure. order as free. That plicit statement in hich he applies in
)ccur in Rocher 1965.
)
The background is quite general, the subsequent discussion rather technical. When certain forms are substituted for others, the question arises whether rules which apply to the sounds of the original should also apply to the sounds of the substitute. The answer is in the negative: Piil)ini 1.1.56 says sthlinivad lideso'nal vidhau 'the substitute [lideSa] is like the original [sthlinin] with reference to a rule, excepting its sounds [all'. The following is an example for the added clause, which is what interests us here. In 7.1.84 a simple substitution is described: the original v in div is replaced by the substitute au, yielding diau and subsequently dyau. Now 6.1.68 says that under certain circumstances a final sound disappears: for example, rajan looses its final n and is replaced by raja. This would apply to the original div in the above situation, yielding di, but not to its substitute dyau where the conditions of 6.1.68 are not fulfilled. If it were to apply to the substitute dyau merely because it is a substitute for div, au itself would disappear and we would once more be left with just di. Thus the entire effect of the substitution would be lost. After enunciating this very general principle with its qualifying clause, Piil)ini gives an exception to the qualifying clause in the next sutra, 1.1.57: acal; parasmin purvavidhau 'the substitute for a vowel is like the original with reference to a rule regarding a preceding sound'. This, then, is an exception to the exception expressed by the qnalifying clause. The following is an example. In pa!aya the rule 7.2.116, applying to the second occurrence 'of a, in fact concerns a preceding sound (i.e., the first occurrence of a) sinc~ the result of its application would be pa!aya. Now pa!aya is ungrammatical. The form pa!aya itself is derived from pa!u-aya, where u is the original and zero is the subsitute. It is only the virtual presence of the original u which prevents the application of 7.2.116 and thereby prevents the generation of the ungrammatical form pa!aya. Summarising: 7.2.116 is a rule which applies to a preceding sound; the preceding sound is zero, for zero is substituted for an original u; according to 1.1.57, the rule 7.2.116 should apply to the original of the preceding sound, i.e., to u; but u does not fulfil the conditions required for the application of 7.2.116 (the 'analyzability' condition); hence there is no scope for 7.2.116 to apply, and the ungrammatical form pa!aya is not generated. This is just what is wanted. The next rule, 1.1.58, enumerates exceptions to this exception to the exception expressed by the qualifying clause of 1.1.56. Rule 1.1.58 says: na padiintadvirvacanavareya[opasvarasavarlJanusviiradfrghajascarvidi$u. This means. that in a number of cases, i.e., paddnta, dvirvacana, vareyalopa, svara, s~var1)a, anusvdra, dirgha, jas, and car, the sound substitute is again unlike the original with reference to a rule regarding a preceding sound. We shall not analyse and illustrate all these cases but single out dirgha, a 31
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
long vowel substituted for a short original, as in the following example. In divna the rule 8.2.77 regards the preceding sound i and prescribes that it be lengthened, with the result that divna is produced. This is the grammatical form which is required. But divna itself, according to 6.3.134, results from diva.na, with a as the original and zero as the substitute. However, 8.2.77 doe~ not apply to divana, since the conditions for its applicability are not fulfilled. Hence we do not want the substitute zero to be treated like the original a, for in that case we would not be able to derive the grammatical form myna. What has happened so far? The rule I. 1.56 says that there is sthanivadbhtiva '[the substitute's] being like the original' in general, but not with regard to its sounds. The next rule, 1.1.57, says that there is sthtinivadbhtiva also with reference to sounds, provided the substitution rules regard preceding sounds. The following rule, 1.1.58, says that there is again no sthanivadbhiiva in a . certain number of cases, even though the substitution rules regard preceding sounds. At this point Pataiijali, who guides us through such tangles '4, says that with reference to a rule the substitute zero ([opa) in divna is not like the original (na sthiinivad). This is not, however, formulated in precisely these terms in I. I .58, and he therefore stages an opporient who objects that it should have been mentioned explicitly. But no, replies Pataiijali, there is no need. For all the words which would be required to formulate this explicitly already occur in this rule and in previous rules. They merely need to be arranged in such a way that the required statement is obtained. At this point he quotes in oupport Kiityayana's varttikti which enables us to return from this long excursus to our proper subject: iinupurvye1Ja sarrmivi~!aniiJ?'l yathe$!am abhisaYf1bandha/:t sakyate kartum 'any desired order may be established between words arranged in a particular succession' (ed. Kielhorn, 1,152, lines 24-5; quoted Renou 1957, 57). The opponent raises a further objection: na caittiny iinupurvyelJa sa'1wivi$fani 'but these are not arranged in a particular succession'. To which the reply is: antinupilrvye1Jtipi sa'1'mivi~!iina1fl yathe~!am abhisaJ?1bandho bhavati 'free word order may also be established between words not arranged in a particular succession~. The term tinupilrvya is here used to refer to a given particular succession of words; the term abhisGl?Jbandha for word order in general, and the term yathe$/am for 'according to wish' or 'free'. Pataiijali rounds off this discussion with the following example: ana<Jvaham udahtiri yti tvaYf1 harasi 'irasti kumblwYf1 bhagini sticinam abhidhtivantam adrak$i/:t may also be arranged as: However, the example for 1.1.57 has been taken from Renou's translation of the A,<;!o_ dhyiiyi; it is based upon the Kiisikii.
14
32
INDIAN TI
udahari bhagini yti tv vantam adrtilqU'l '0
head, saw the bull n In order to see wi this sentence in term~ can be represented \: order VP .... NP"V bhaginy alla(ivaham ,
-------
NP \ N
bhogini
The recursive rule (: corresponding to th, carries the pot on h, water' (S2) and: ana This results in the f, the head' and the Ad' formulating the requ If (iv) is interpret p. 15) a trimmed 1 bhagin! bhagini udak, siicfnam abhidhiivati transformational rull translormed into th harasi anacJvtiharrz- sac could be derived by I This would result h hm'ati udakam harat This, presumably, cc sirasii kumbha'1'l hara (22). Still other arra some of the re-writir
GRAMMAR
allowing example. nd prescribes that :is the grammatical 3.134, results from :. However, 8.2.77 , 'pIicability are not >, be treated like the re the grammatical
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
udahari bhagini ya tVall' kumbhal]1 harasi sirasa anat!vahml1 sacinam abhidhlivan tam adriik~ilJ '0 water-carrying sister, you who carry the pot on your
head, saw the buH running across' (ed. Kielhorn, I, 152 line 26 -153line 3). In order to see what such a re-arrangement amounts to we shall analyse this sentence in terms of the system of Chomsky's Aspects. The basic sentence can be represented by the following (already simplified) tree (note that the order VP--.NP"V has been adopted), (corresponding to the sentence) bhaginy anat!vliham adrlikeib '0 sister you saw the bull':
s 'e is sthlinivadbhliva
not with regard to
-----
vadbhava also with
NP
. preceding sounds. thlinivadbhtiva in a :s regard preceding
I
N
bhagini
mgles '4, says that J/1a is not like the I in precisely these )jects that it should , there is no need.
,ate this explicitly nerely need to be obtained. At this ,abies us to return f!1Ja sa1]1nivi#anii1[l
:d order may be ion' (ed. Kielhorn, rzupur ~yelJa smrmi.on'. T 9, which the 'al]1banClho bhavati not arranged in a rticular succession
eral, and the term : off this discussion VGf!1 harasi sirasii iO
be arranged as:
nslation of the A,'i!ii_
VP
/~ /
//
NP
I
""" ,
V
(iij)
adrak'ii~
N
ona(jvfJham
The recursive rule (3) can now be utilized to embed three trees into (iij) , corresponding to the sentences: bhagini sirasa kumbhaJ?l harati 'the sister carries the pot on l;1er head' (S,); bhaginy udakal]1 harati 'the sister carries water' (S,) and: anat!vlihab sdcinam abhidhlivati 'the bull runs across' (S,). This results in the following tree (note that the Instrumental sirasli 'upon the tead' and the Adverb slicinam·'across' have been added without explicitly formulating the required rules) (see diagram iv, p. 34). If (iv) is interpreted' in the usual way as what has been called (above, p. 15) a trimmed tree, it would produce the following string: bhagini hhaginf hhagini udakam harati sirasti kumbham harati ana{lviiham anarJvdhab· slicinam abhidhlivati adrakeib. Presupposing that we have the required transformational rules at our disposal, it may be assumed that this can be transformed into the sentence: bhagini ya tl'am udahliri sirasli kumbhGll1 harasi anat!vlilwl]1 slicinam abhidhavantam adrlikeib (21). Another arrangement could be derived by reversing the order of embedding of S, and S, into (iij). This would result in the string: bhagini bhagini Magini sirasa kumbham harati udakam harati anat!vliham anat!vahab slicinam abhidhtivati adrakeib. This, presumably, could be transformed into the sentence: bhagini ya tvul]1 sirasli kumbhal1' harasy udahary anat!vlihal]1 sacinam abhidhlivantam adrakei/.l
(22). Still other arrangements could be obtained by changing the order in some of the re-writing rules utilized to set up (iv). 33
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
INDIAN TH
s
Miller, 1963, 288). I braces instead of brae: are often omitted in 11 the two methods rna) of the rules:
v can be expressed by t
ana
bhogini
horati
(iv) N udakam
Unfortunately, neither (21) nor (22) coincides with either of Patanjali's arrangements. Sentences derived with the help of differently ordered rewritiugrules would deviate even more. If one should wish to derive Patanjali's sentences from (21) or (22), this could only be done by adopting another array of transformational rules. The resulting description would make use of rules like (16)-(18), quoted above (p. 12) in connection with Rama's lookiug at Govinda, but it should be clear that the description here required would turn out to be much more complicated than the one given earlier. If we look a little more closely, it will become apparentthattheseproblems cannot be solved even if re-writiug rules in terms of sets and wild trees are adopted. In wild trees, as observed before, the points dominated by a single node constitute a set. They can accordingly be arranged in any desired order. But in order to derive Patanjali's sentences from (iv), whether or not interpreted as a wild tree, or from any similarly constructed tree, rearrangements are required which go beyond the confines of single constituents or elements domiuated by a single node or category symbol. This may be shown, e.g., by adapting the method of labelled bracketiug to wild trees. It is known' that for trimmed trees, an equivalent structure in terms oflabelled bracketing can always be given, and vice versa (Chomsky & 34
or equivalently by lat ( ( Ran SNP
Analogously, appli
can be expressed by , by the followiug labe { { Ram SNP
Applying this to (iv; braces, one derives: { { bhagini, {
{
S NP S, NP , { #~'asti, kumbham VP , { allatjvahab, {
S,
VP
so
GRAMMAR
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
.
)
v
"'-
can be expressed by the trimmed tree:
~
A
Miller, 1963, 288). For wild trees this can be done analogously, using braces instead of brackets and replacing concatenation signs (which, however, are often omitted in labelled bracketing) by commas. The difference between the two methods may be illustrated by the following example. Application of the rules: S .... NP"VP VP .... V"NP
A
NP
)\
V
5cinam abhidhiivaU
Ramo
V
NP
saw
Govinda
I
(v)
I
(iv) or equivalently by labelled bracketing, as follows:
ither of Patafijali's 'rently ordered reo derive Patafijali's , adopting another n would make use ,tion with Rama's ption here required
( ( Rama) ( (saw) ( Govinda) » . SNP NPVPV VNP NPVPS Analogously, application of the rules: S .... {NP, VP} VP->{V, NP} can be expressed by a wild tree which looks exactly like (v), or eqdvalently by the following labelled and stratified set:
one gJ.ven earlier.
that th,~e problems and wild trees are s dominated by a 1ged in any desired n (iv), whether or mstructed tree, re-
of single constitusymbol. ,elled bracketing to valent st(ucture in versa (Chomsky &
{ { Rama } , { {saw}, { Govinda} }} . SNP NP VPV V NP NPVPS Applying this to (iv), interpreted as a wild tree, and omitting innermost braces, one derives:
{ { bhagini, { { bhagini, { bhagini, { udakam, harati} } }, S NP S, NP S2 VP VP S2 NP , { sirasa, kumbham, harati} } }, { {ana
INDIAN THJ
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
Assuming again that the various transformational rules have been applied, one may omit labels, simplify rather liberally and arrive at the following stratified set: {{bhagini, yii, tvam, uddhari, sirasii, kumbham, harasi}, {anatjviiham, \siicinam, abhidhiivantam}, adriik$fb} .
,
Having thus reduced hierarchical complexity, one is left with a set containing three elements, two of which are subsets. If we adhere to the simple principle that the elements of a set can be arranged at will, it has now become clear to what extent the order may be re-arranged: the seven words beginning with bhagilli may be arranged in any order; the three words beginning with anat/vtiham may be arranged in any order; and the two subsets themselves along with adrtik$ib may be arranged in any order. To obtain a sentence we finally drop all braces and apply salldhi rules to the resulting string. This leads to the conclusion that ev'en if we use sets and wild trees and allow for considerable simplification, we still cannot derive the first of Pataiijali's sentences - the simple reason being that allat/vtiham 'bull' cannot be taken out of its subset and placed elsewhere. One might object to this long analysis by claiming that the example is far-fetched and that bulls by nature cannot be kept within narrow confines. But this is not so. Anyone who wishes to find precise rules for word order in Sanskrit, will constantly meet with similar problems, provided the sentences he studies are not uncommonly short. So it need cause no surprise that Piil)ini did not provide rules for word. order in Sanskrit. In fact the Sanskrit grammarians assumed, as we have seen before, not that such rilles are beyond the scope of grammar, but that there are no such rules, since word order or ab/zisa1]'lballdha is free. But if they neither studied word order nor neglected syntax, what then are the grammatical relations \sarylbandha) which the Sanskrit grammarians did study and by means of which they analysed the' construction of sentences? To answer this problem in full a considerable number of Piil)ini's rules would have to be analysed. Since this seems to be beyond the scope of the present investigation, which primarily deals with word order, we shall only consider the topic which in this respect is fundamental, i.e., the theory of the relations which Piil)ini called ktiraka. Out of the seven ktiraka relations which are enumerated, we shall single out karman for particular scrutiny. Even with these restrictions it will be possible to show that the problem of word order is not only affected, but is indeed placed in its proper perspective by the ktiraka theory. The theory of ktiraka has been studied ever since Western scholars
36
started dealing with contributions by Whi grammar, Boehtlingk: recently the topic ha, Almost all these scho approached the preble unclear. Still, the quest ar~
very pertinent one important was missin
This analysis was ina, failed to explain why occur in certain plac(
ending, bhagilli the N the Accusative, and w
questions indeed be n establish some order t The ktiraka theory fa: Though Faddegon', of the notion of ktirai he treats other PI obi quoted above, page ktiraka is formulated: or ideational relations
an object or anything or anything cOflceivec
In this passage Fad grammatical relation: discovered theimport: but also for linguistic terminology at his dis can in fact be under:
deep structure. Alte! studying the various grammatical relatiom An example may n karman, which
expre~
immediately generate
n Cf. Renou 1940, 10 n(
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
GRAMMAR
have been applied, ,e at the following
}, {ana¢vaham,
left with a set con- . dhere to the simple ~ it has now become
Ie seven words be-
:ee words beginning : two subsets them;rder. To obtain a les to the resulting
and wild trees and derive the first of anar:Jviiham 'bull' )ne might object to ohed and that bulls
:s is not so. Anyone
trit, will constantly lie studies are not
ride rules for word
mmed, as we have
·grammar, but that ;ndha is free. But if what then are the I gramwarians did ICtion of sentences? ~r of pa1].ini's rules ad the scope of the rder, we shall only · Le., the theory of i;fi kiiraka relations particular scrutiny. 1 that the problem I in its proper per-
· Western scholars
started dealing with Pal)ini's grammar. The relevant literature includes contributions by Whitney, Faddegon, and Thieme; the translators of the grammar, Boehtlingk and Renou, had to face its many intricacies; and most recently the topic has again been taken up by Rosane Rocher (1964a). Almost all these scholars, with the possible exception of Faddegon, have approached the problem in such a way that certain basic ideas have remained unclear. Still, the questions to which the karaka theory formulates an answer, are very pertinent ones. They emerge as soon as one realizes that something important was missing in the preceding analysis of Patafijali's sentences. This analysis was inadequate in many respects, but in particular because it failed to explain why certaiu declensional and conjugational terminations occur in certain places. Why did for example bhagini have the Vocative ending, bhaginl the Nominative, kumbham, ana¢vaham and abhidhrivantam the Accusative, and why were harasi and adrak$iQ in the Singular? Can such questions indeed be meaningfully asked after attempts have been made to establish some order between words that themselves still lack determination? The karaka theory formulates a solution to precisely such problems. Though Faddegon's formulations are sometimes weird 15 and his analysis of the notion of karaka is sketchy and somewhat obscured by the fact that he treats other problems alongside it, his general poirit of departure (as quoted above, page 3) was sound and correct. His interpretation of karaka is formulated as follows: "By karakas Pal)ini understands the logical or ideational relations between a noun and a verb, or more
pr~cisely
between
an object or anything conceived aftel the analogy of an object and an action or anything conceived after the analogy of an action" (I936, 18). In thi, passage Faddegon seeks to find an adeqnate expression for certain grammatical relations of the deep structure. If scholars had by 1936 rediscovered the importance of deep structure not only forlogic and philosophy, but also for linguistics, Faddegon would have had an adequate theory and terminology at his disposal for handling PaIJini', theory. The karaka theory can in fact be understood from the purely semantic interpretation of the deep structure. Alternatively and equivalently, it can be undecstood by studying the various sentences of the surface structure, in which identical grammatical relations of the deep structure are expressed. An example may make this clear. Let us consider the karaka relation of karman, which expressed the direct object. A simple sentence which may be immediately generated from the base is: kumbhan karoti 'he makes pots'.
Hi
(23)
cr. Renou 1940, 10 note 1: "ouvrage un peu fantasque, mais seduisant".
37
•
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
INDIAN T
Here the karaka relation karman obtains between the Verb karoti and the direct object kumbhiin. This relation could be expressed in Chomskian terms as [NP, VPj. In the particular sentence (23), it is expressed by the Accusative ending -an which is' attached to the Nominal stem kumbh-. The karaka relations may in general be symbolized by [NP, VPj. They do nofgenerally include the Su bject (in fact there seems to be some inconsistency here) and accordingly may not be symbolized by [NP, Sj. Direct relations between the denotations of two nouns are also excluded. This is again interesting in the context of generative grammar, since such relations (as sometimes manifested, e.g., by the Genitive case) do not belong to base Phrase-markers but are introduced by embedding Phrase-markers into each other, i.e., by applying a rule like: NP-->Det"'N"'S. Since the Subject and what is expressed by the Genitive (but not the Objective Genitive: see below, page 40) are excluded from the karoko relations, we are left with the relations between the verb and the different noun phrases of the verb phrase. In terms ofthe tree:
with what is prima independent (agent) (1.4.55). This is made mOfl
of these relationshi] a base Phrase-mad grtimiid tigacchati ' by the Dative(2.3.13 karalJa is expressed 1 Vrk$QJ?1 chinatti 'he
I i
i! I
in sentences immed remaining cases we
I
derived sentenCes (i due to the fact that
i
(vi)
the Locative (2.3.36 by the Accusative is expressed again 1 vipreva pacyate 'it as the Subject of a ( datta causes [somee In the first five ca:
place, which we car
I
Most WesterrJ. int to straightforward I terminations, PaI).in
we can state that karaka relations are [NP VPj, ... , [NP n , VP]. These " But first let us return relations would of course have to be further determined. to Pal)ini. Before showing how karaka relationships are manifested in basic sentences and, equivalently, in transformationally derived sentences, Pa]J.ini gives semantic characterizations. These CQuid be translated variously; their
precise interpretation and translation continue to raise problems and will determine the interpretation and translation of later rules. We shall provisionally interpret them as follows, mainly following Faddegon (1936, 18) and Renou's translation of the A~!tidhytiyi. The kiiraka relations are denoted by the following terms: apadtina, sa/]1pradiina, karalJa, adhikara1Ja, karman, kartar, and hetu. The term apadtina denotes the relation of movement away from a fixed point (1.4.24); sGI?1pradana denotes the relation with whom or what one has in view, when giving something (1.4.32); karava denotes the relation with the most effective means (1.4.42); .adhikarava denotes the relation with the locus (1.4.45); karman denotes the relation 38
,
thing vaguely serna Pal)ini was only in case endings seem
1
interested in syntaJ caBed deep structu] tactically we shall 1 derived sentences. I " MatHai (1961) has logicians with regard tc as 'he sees with his eye: undesirable conclusion provide the backgroun( acterize Indian philosOl ne sont pas des receptel au passage et parfois VI 17 Moreover, the comr Rocher (l964b), mainl) regarded by Pal)ini as f
GRAMMAR
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
erb kal'oti and the I Chomskian terms 1by the Accusative 1-.
[NP, VPj. They do some inconsistency') >]. Direct relations '
led. This is again such relations (as ot belong to base -markers into each
litive (but not the from the karaka ) and the different
with what is primarily desired by the agent (1.4.49); kartar denotes the independent (agent) (1.4.54); hetu, finally, denotes what prompts the agent (1.4.55). This is made more precise in syntactical terms, when we are told how most of these relationships are expressed in sentences immediately derived from a base Phrase-marker: apadana is expressed by the Ablative (2.3.28) e.g., grtimiid dgacchati 'he arrives from the village'; sal'flpraddna is expressed by the Dative (2.3.13), e.g., viprayagal!1 dadati 'he gives a cow to the Brahman' ; karaQa is expressed by the Instrumental (2.3.18: but see below), e.g.,parasunii Vrk~a1]1 chinatti 'he cuts the tree with an axe' 16; adhikaralJa is expressed by the Locative (2.3.36), e.g., kata aste 'he sits on a mat'; karman is expressed by the Accusative (2.3.2), e.g., kumbhan karoti 'he makes pots'; kartar is expressed again by the Instrumental (2.3.18: see above and below), e.g., vipreQa pacyate 'it is cooked by the Brahman'; hetu, finally, is expressed as the Subject of a Causative verb (1.4.55), e.g., karayati Devadattab 'Devadatta causes [someone elsej to make'. In the first five cases we are shown how karaka relationships are expressed in sentences immediately derived from a base Phrase-marker; in the two remaining cases we are shown how they are expressed in transformationally
(vi)
[NP", VPj. These ut first let us return :sted in basic sensentences, pal).ini :ed variously; their
problems and will les. We shall prolddegon (1936, 18) lations are denoted ihikaralJa, karman, :ion of movement the relation with g (1.4.32); karaQa .4.42); adhikaraQa !notes the relation
derived sentences (i.e., Passive and Causative). This apparent exception is due to the fact that in this system the Nominative occupies a very special place, which we cannot discuss here (see Thieme 1956).17 Most Western interpreters have been puzzled by the fact. that, in addition to straightforward cases and tJ;teir superficial expression by means of case terminations, PaI)ini seems to have required for his kiiraka relations some~ thing vaguely semantic. This is due' to the fact that they assumed that Palfini was only interested in surface morphology, for which cases and case endings seem to be quite sufficient at first sight. But pal).ini was also interested in syntax and sentence construction, or in what is nowadays caIled deep structure. In order to appreciate how this system works syntactically We shall need to look at the construction of transformationally derived sentences. It will then be seen that we cannot establish any result 16
Matilal (1961) has reported on interesting discussions between grammarians and
logicians with regard to the view, that karal;a expresses the cause: since in such sentences as
undesirable conclusion that the eye causes the visual object. - Such confusions could provide the background for subjective idealism. It would however be premature to characterize Indian philosophy in similar terms (Renou-Filliozat 1953,7: "Les organes des sens ne sont pas des recepteurs passifs d'excitations, ce sont des 'forces' (illdriya) qui agrippent au passage et parfois vont chercher (c'est Ie cas de la vue) les objets exterieurs"). 17 Moreover, the commentator's views on he/u, adopted here, have been challenged by Rocher (1964b), mainly because the agent of the Causative verb, too, seems to have been regarded by PaI)ini as expressing karlar.
39
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
INDIAN 1
without some such notion as karaka. This will be shown in a somewhat simplified manner, mainly with respect to karman, and without giving a complete analysis of the many rules which are involved. As we have seen, Pal)ini (2.3.2) says that in sentences immediately derived from a base Phrase-marker, the karman relationship is expressed by the Accilsative: , kurnbhan karoti 'he makes pots'. (23)
commentators were Rosane Rocher, \
But if we derive the Passive: (tena) kurnbha/:z kriyante 'pots are made (by him)'
(24)
the same karman is now denoted by the Nominative ending in combination with a Passive marker attached to the Verb. This' follows from 3.4.79, which introduces Passive markers, and 3.4.69 and 1.3.13, which state that Passive markers serve to express karman. Similarly the Perfect Passive Participle occurs in: kumbhab i'ftab 'pots (are) made'. (25) Here again the same karman is expressed on account of 3.4.70. But also in the Objective Genitive of: kurnbhanal[l karta 'maker of pots'
(26)
this karman occurs, on account of 2.3.65. It appears once more in the nominal compound: kumbhakara 'pot-maker, potter'. (27)
If anywhere, the term 'transformation' is applicable here: (24)-(27) are all transformationally related to (23). Pa!).ini expresses this by sayihg that karman is the one karaka relationship which is present in each of these expressions. The expressions arc, moreover, synonymous, since transformations do not change meaning: there is, as the commentators say, sdmarthya 'sameness of meaning' (with certain qualifications, some of them mentioned
below). In order to establish that according to Pa1)ini one relationship occurs in many different linguistic expressions, rules have to be quoted from different parts of the grammar. Students of Pa1)ini are familiar with this device, for the order of the rules is based upon other considerations such as laghava 'simplicity' and anuvrtti 'recurrence' (see e.g. Renou 1957, s.v.; cf. Fowler . 1965, StaaI1966c). We have already had examples of this (pages 31-2). Lest it be thought, however, that we want to present Pa1)ini as the discoverer of transformations by making use of far-fetched or even forced interpretations made possible by this device, we must show that both modern and ancient 40
I.
of contemporary lin un fait quelconquepeut s'exprimer par passive tena kumb!. genitif objectif ku» (Rocher 1964a, 52). Patai'ijali provide, different underlying obscures the issue, (and of similar lat stated that the kara expressions, an op: inventory [of these varttika which enun clear from the exarr nam 'the enumerat !crt [a class of prim; samdsa [nominal c( usual manner, quoti 'tin as in kflJ:ate kat mat"; taddhita as : "descendant of Kaf cows" or sabalagu1:t ' 19-22). These examples rr is made' the tin or ve karman; the sentenc makes the mat'. In k indicates that the k, semantically related mat'. In aupagava/:z . technically called a~ phrase is therefore sy Similarly for kapa!G1 samdsa or nominal c is karman; the phras brindled cows' or yt Similarly for sabalag. We see from the:
3RAMMAR
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
in a somewhat without giving a
III
Imediately derived expressed by the )
(23)
(24)
him)'
ng in combination
lows from 3.4.79, which state that Ie Perfect Passive
i,
(25) 3.4.70. But also in (26) once more in the
. (27) here: (24)-(27) are his by saying that t in each of these s, since_transformorS say, samarthya )f thenl.mentioned -")<'
elationship occurs
oted from different . with this device, illS such as liighava ;7, s.v.; cf. Fowler (pages 31-2). Lest .s the discoverer of oed interpretations ,odern and ancient
•
commentators were aware of such connexions as exist between (23)-(27). Rosane Rocher, who interprets Piil)ini without any reference to problems of contemporary linguistics, is as exp1icit as one could desire: "Pour Pa:o-ini, un fait quelconque - celui, par exemple, qu'un personnage fabrique des potspeut s'exprimer par une construction active kumbhan karoti, une tournure passive tena kumbhii/:! kriyante, par un nom d'action accompagne d'un genitif objectif kumbluiniil]'! kartr, ou encore un compose kumbhakara" (Rocher .1964a, 52). Pataiijali provides examples of the same kiiraka relationship, though from ·different underlying sentences of the base. This choice of examples slightly obscures the issue, but may explain that the importance of this passage (and of similar later passages) has generally been overlooked. Having stated that the kiiraka relationships are invariant in a variety of linguistic expressions,an opponent says that then pariga1)anal]'! kartavyam 'an inventory [of these expressions] should be made'. Pataiijali replies with a viirttika which enumerates various technical terms whose function will be clear from the examples which follow: tiizkrttaddhitasamiisai/:! parisankhyiinam 'the enumeration is given by means of tin [verbal termination], krt [a class of primary affixes], taddhita [a class of secondary affixes] and samiisa [nominal compounds]'. He comments upon this viirttika in the usual manner, quoting it again, and subsequently provides the examples: 'tili as in kriyate kata{1 "the mat is made"; krt as in krta/:z kata!; "the made mat"; taddhita as in aupagaval; "descendant of Upagu" or kiipa/ava/:! "descendant of Kapatu"; and samasa as in citragu/:z "possessing brindled cows" or sabalagu/:! "possessing mottled cows'" (ed. Kielhorn, I, 441, lines 19-22). These examples may be explained as follows. In kriyate kala/:! 'the mat is made' the tin or verbal termination -te indicates that the kiiraka relation is karman; the sentence is therefore synonymous, e.g., with ka{alfl karoti 'he makes the mat'. In krta/:! kata/:! 'the made mdt' the krt or primary affix-ta(/:!) indicates that the kiiraka relation is also karman; the phrase is therefore semantically related e.g. to the same sentence, katal]'! karoti 'he makes the mat'. In aupogava/:! 'descendant of Upagu' the taddhita or secondary affix, teclmically called a(l, indicates that the kiiraka relation is apadiina; the phrase is therefore synonymous with upogor apatyam 'descendant of Upagu'. Similarly for kiipatava/:!. In citragu/:! 'possessing brindled cows', which is a samasa or nominal compound of the bahuvrihi variety, the kiiroka relation is karman; the phrase is therefore synonymous with citragoman 'possessing brindled cows' or yasya citragiivab.sa/:! '(he) who possesses brindled cows'. Similarly for sabalagu/:!. We see from these examples that the Indian grammarians not only 41
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
considered transformational relations, but a great variety of such relations. In some of these the contemporary maxim 'transformations do not change meaning' (cf. Katz and Postal 1964; Staal 1965b) is adhered to. In others, closely related semantic relations are envisaged. These various semantic relations are carefully distinguished (a list of some of these occurs in Renou 195t s. v. 'taddhita') and it may well be asked whether contemporary transformational theory will not have to consider such relations in due course. In the passage commenting upon siUra 2.3.2 in Bhattoji Dik~ita's Siddhantakaumudf, a rather similar discussion occurs: anukte karmGl)i dvitiya syat /
hari/fl bhajati / abhihite tu karmalJi prdtipadikdrthamdtra iti prathamaiva / abhidhana/fl tu prdyalJa tilikrttadhitasamdsa!; / tin hari!; sevyate / krt lck~myd sevita!; / taddhita!; satena krita/z satya!; / samdsa!; prdpta dnando ya'1" sa prdptdnanda!; 'If the karman relationship is not expressed otherwise it is expressed by the Accusative, as in hari'1' bhajati "he worships Hari". If, however, it is expressed by the Verb, itisin the Nominative. The meaning is generally introduced' by either fiJi, krt, taddhita or samdsa: tin as in hari sevyate "Hari is served"; krt as in /ak$l1'lYci sevita[1 "served by Lak$111i"; taddhita as in satya from satena kritail "bought with a hundred"; and samdsa as in prdptdnanda!; "blissful" from prdpta tinando ya/fl sai' "he whom bliss has reached".' The examples here given by Bhattoji may be explained along similar lines, though there is at least one significant extension. In hari sevyate 'Hari is served' the tbi or verbal ending -te again indicates the karman relation; but if it is true that this sentence is considered synonymous with harbrz bhajati 'he worships Hari', as indicated, this is particularly interesting, since it establishes a semantic relationship between verbs, which are related in the manner in which in English please and like, buy and sell, etc., are related (for mechanisms and devices which might deal with' such relations, see Staal 1967a). In lak~myd sevita!,l 'served by Lak~mi' the krt or primary affix -ta(!;) indicates that the kdraka relation is karlar; this phrase is therefore semantically !elated to sevate lak~mi!; 'Lak~mi serves' (notice that this analysis is in fact determined by the Instrumental ending, which, however, is a sup or nominal termination, not a krt; if this be rejected, the interpretation given to Patafijali's krta!; ka!a/t may be resorted to). In satya the taddhita or secondary affix -ya indicates that the kdraka relation is karalJa; the phrase is therefore synonymous with satena krita!; 'bought with a hundred'. In prdptdnanda!; 'blissful', lastly, the kdraka relation is karman again and the synonymous expression is given. These passages may be sufficient to demonstrate that the Sanskrit grammarians needed the kdraka theory for establishing relations that we would nowadays call 'tranformational'. The related expressions may be sentences 42
INDIAN T
or noun phrases. L order; in the latter e of the taddhita suff is free, but the orde compounds is espec bers is postponed te able to assume, tha siderations of orde] be ordered 'freely', This was also man counter-examples (, (Staal 1966a, 171-2 (pradhtina) and sub determined by their later. In other wor, of elements, are pri these elements whic the elements or the. of all these relation to the analysis of following vdrttikd: , ta/fl prati tad upasarJ it has to be inferred importance is that is used' (ed. Kielho. The kdraka theor by carefully selectee by problems of gral same time the gene object of research a of these two apprc description of these long discussion foll, The question is r seems to occupy th, as ka!Glrz karoti bhi 'he makes an excel! mat', ka!arrz karoti , wh¥ ka!am 'mat' hf Patai'ijali discusses here. The Genitive,
GRAMMAR
, of such relations, ons do not change ered to, In others, various semantic ;e occurs in Renou , ': )ntemporary trans- \ ons in due course. Dlk~ita's Siddhiin, 'ma(li dvitiya syat / 7 iti prathamaiva / vyate / krt lak~mytl ~a iinando yaJ?2 sa •sed otherwise it is !,
lorships Hari". If,
:ve. The meaning is lisa: tili as in hari :rved by Lakrmi"; ldred"; and samasa ab "he whom bliss along similar lines, lri sevyate 'Hari is e karman relation; ,ymous with haril[1 "ly interesting, since
'h are related in the ?ll, etc., are related such relations, see :he krt or primary
, phrase i~,therefore , (notic<;'i"that this which, however, is a .1, the interpretation l satya the taddhita ; karalJa; the phrase 'ith a hundred'. In ''man again and the
the 'Sanskrit grami.ons that we would 5 may be sentences
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
or noun phrases, In the former case nothing is said with regard to word order; in the latter case the order of the elements may be fixed, as in the case of the taddhita suffixes. In such cases as krt, the order of noun and verb is free, but the order of stem and suffix is determined. The case of nominal compounds is especially interesting, since the fixation of order of the memI, bers is postponed to a later stage than we might expect. For it seems reasonable to assume,. that a description in terms of strings and based upon considerations of order, though perhaps inadequate for sentences which may be ordered 'freely', is particularly appropriate for nominal compouuds. This was also more or less assumed in the cases given by the Nirukta as counter-examples (above, page 25), However, as we have shown elsewhere (Staal 1966a, 171-2), PaQini first introduces the distinction between main (pradhana) and subordinate (upasarjana) members of compounds, which is determined by their grammatical relationship only, Order is introduced much leter. In other words, compounds, though ultimately described as strings of elements, are primarily accounted for in terms of relationships between these elements which need not be manifest in or derivable from the order of the elements or their physical shape. This is in fact the main characteristic of all these relationships. The principle underlying this practice with regard to the analysis of nominal composition, is succinctly expressed in the following vtlrttiktl: sa~lbandhiid etad gantavyal[1 yal[1 prat; yad apradhiinal[1 tal[1 prati tadupasarjanal[1 bhavati 'from the grammatical relation [sGll'bandhal it has to be inferred that a word in relation to which a term is of secoudary importance is that in relation to which the term subordinate (upasarjana) is used' (ed, Kielhorn, I, 215 lines 10-1, quoted Renou 1957, 326), The ktlraka theory was not merely adopted as a general theory to be tested by carefully selected examples:Its application to questions of detail raised by problems of grammatical description, was also carefully studied. At the same time the general background and significance of the theory were the object of research and speculation. An example will now be given of each of these two approaches before we conclude this section with a general description of these relations'hips, Both examples are taken from Patafijali's long discussion following siitra 2.3.1. The question is considered what should happen if more than one word seems to occupy the same place in a ktlraka relationship. In such sentences as ka/OIl' karoti bhi~mam 'he makes a dreadful mat', ka/al[1 karoty udtlram 'he makes an excellent mat', katal[1 karoti sobhanam 'he makes a beantiful mat'. ka!aJ?1. karati darsaniyam 'he makes a handsome mat'} the rule explains why katam 'mat' has the Accusative ending. But what about bhi~mam, etc,? Patafijali discusses various suggestions, whicli will be merely mentioned here. The Genitive, which often takes care of the remaining relationships, 43
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
INDIAN T
might in some sense be used. Or else the rule which introduces the Accusative for karam is somehow construed as also applying to bhi$mam, etc. Or lastly, bhi$mam etc. follow karam, 'since they occupy the same position' (siimiiniidhikaraJ;lyiit) (ed. Kielhorn, I, 441 line 23 - 442 line 5). llsewhere the relation between kiiraka and the ontological categories is briefly touched upon.'B Nowhere in this connection does Patanjali evince the philosophical obtuseness of which he has recently been accused (Frauwallner 1960, 107). His statement, on the contrary, is forceful and clear. In addition it is linguistically interesting because it takes into account the fact that sentences occur in a wider context of discourse. The idea is entertained that kiiraka relations perhaps always refer to the same categories, e.g., dravya 'substance'. But it is easily discarded by just listening to the following conversation: kva devadattal;! 'Where is Devadatta?' - asau Vrk$e 'On that tree'. - katarasmin 'On which of the two?' - yti (;$!hati 'Tha~ which stands'. This receives the comment: sa vrk$o'dhikaralJG1!1 bhiitvti anyena sabdeniibhisal[lbadhyamiinal;! kartii sal[lpadyate 'that tree which was adhikaralJa becomes karlar as soon as it is combined with another word' (ed. Kielhorn, I, 442 lines 24--5). The kiiraka relationships, then, are semantic, not ontological relationships. In semantical terms this means, moreover, that the kiiraka relations deal with meaning, not with reference. They could be called 'logical' in the sense in which Chomsky used the term when speaking about logical subject, logical object, e"c. (1965, 70). In the familiar tree: 5
NP
A
NP
(vij)
V
we may define [NP, VPj as the grammatical Object-of. But in a sentence which is transformationally derived from (vij), the NP determined by [NP, VPj may occnpy the position of the grammatical Subject. It continues how18 Attention may be drawn to the fact that the ontological categories of the VaiSe~ika system, which were adopted by the Indian logicians, were based upon categories of language, as were Aristotle's categories (cf,-StaaI1963a, 18-21 = 1965d, 106). Faddegon, who most probably was the first Western scholar to point this out, constructed a 'semasiological classification' to explain the relation between Noun and Verb, which at the same time was to serve as a basis for the discussion of the Vaise~ika categories (Faddegon 1918, 108-11).
44
ever to be the logi object of the under!: one obtains exactl) scarcely be added, wild trees and, folic C. JAIMI
The philosophers c wikyamimtif!'lsakas '
pages 1 and 20). Sti order that would n( to discussions of th similar to that whic their prinCipal state first, in order to sh millennium, second of the grammarians that in the course 0 and an important n In Jairnini' s Mim with opponents who meaningless. Many simply absurd; they four horns, three fe' objects (e.g., herbs a dant; there is a tradil teaching of their me 1960, 68 sq.). Again order of words (in 1 Sa\>ara describes kramii hi mantrii i arthapratyiiyaniirtha syiit / athocciiralJavi, lena yatarasmin paA api niyamo drsyate tyayiibhiiviit 'For m For example, agnir meant to be express order, and so fixinl particular utterance
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SA NSKRIT
GRAMMAR
Ices the Accusative bhi~mam, etc. Or he same position' ne 5). gical categories is lS Pataiijali evince en accused (Frau'orceful and clear. s into account the tlways refer to the discarded by just lere is Devadatta?' two?' - yit ti~!hati ihikara{taf!1 bhiitva tat tree which was ith another word' gical relationships. aka relations deal )gical' in the sense Jt logical subject,
(vij) .
But in a sentence :termined by [NP, It continues how)ries of the Vaise$ika )on categories of lanlSd, 106). Faddegon, constructed a 'sema:rb. which at the same )ries (Faddegon 1918,
ever to be the logical object provided this is defined as the grammatical object of the underlying sentence. By means of simple definitions of this type one obtains exactly those relations which Piilfini called ktiraka. It need scarcely be added, finally, that such definitions can be given in terms of wild trees and, following Palfini, without taking order into account. C. JAIMINI, SAHARA, AND KUMARILA HHATTA
The philosophers of the MlmaI)lsa have been correctly characterized as vdkyamimdrrzsakas 'investigators of the sentence' (Renoll, quoted above, pages 1 and 20). Still, there is little in their teaching with respect to word order that would not by now be familiar to the reader. They mainly revert to discussions of the Kautsa-controversy and their entire approach is very similar to that which was found in the Nirukta (above, p. 24-5). Some of their principal statements pertinent to our context will now be referred to, first, in order to show the continuity of these discussions for more than a millennium, secondly because there are clear indications that some results of the grammarians have been taken into account. An additional reason is that in the course of these discussions a few points are stated rather clearly and an important new distinction is introduced. In Jaimini's Mfmdrr1sdsutra and in Sabara's commentary, we meet again
with opponents who maintain Kautsa's thesis that the Vedic mantras are meaningless. Many reasons are adduced: so often the mantras appear simply absurd; they speak of things_that do not exist (e.g., something with four horns, three feet, two heads and seven hands); they address inanimate objects (e.g.,herbs and stones); they are self-contradictory aild often redundant; thereis a tradition for them to be learnt by heart, but no corresponding teaching of their meaning; etc. (Mirntif!1stisiitra 1.2.4, sutras 34-8; cf. Renou 1960,68 sq.). Again the familiar reason is given: vtikyaniyarntit 'because the order of words (in mantras) is fixed' (1.2.4, siitra 32). Sabara describes the opponents' view in the following terms: niyatapadakrarnti hi mantra bhavanti / agnir murdhti diva iti na vijJaryaye~a / yady arthapratyayanarthti viparyayevapy arthal; pratiyata iti niyamo'narthakai;l syat / athocciirG1:zaviSe~drthii viparyaye'nyad ucciiralJam iti niyama asriyate lena yatarasmin pak$e niyamo'rthawin sa niinarrz pak$a iii / nanv arthavatsv api niyamo drsyate / yathendragni iti / yuktaf!1 tatra tat / viparyaye'rthapratyayabhiivat 'For mantras have the order [krama] of words fixed [niyata]. For example, agnir miirdhit diva, and not the reverse. If meanings were meant to be expressed, the meaning would also be expressed by the reverse order, and so fixing the order would be pointless. If it be argued that a particular utterance [ucctirava] is intended and that that utterance, when 45
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
reversed, would be another one, so that fixed order has for that reason been established - then, on the second of the views mentioned, fixing the order would indeed be significant. Further, with regard to meaningful expressions fixed order is also observed, for example in indriigni "Indra and Agni". In, this case it is correct, for the reversal would not express any meaning' (ed, Anandasrama, 146). The most interesting observation here made by the opponent is that word order is fixed in utterances, even if it be not fixed in sentences. And
this much is granted by the author. The distinction is indeed relevant for the MimaIjlsa, which studied, as we have seen, the Vedic language in as far as it was embodied in the Vedic tradition (above, p. 24). By the time of Sabara the distinction between sentence and utterance is known (it could be most easily derived from the distinction between type and token, cf. Staal 1966d), and Sabara realises that his investigations are concerned with utterances, studied as such and not as utterance tokens of sentence types. This might perhaps be interpreted as saying, that the MimaIjlsa is interested in language from the point of view of performance, but not of competence (Chomsky 1964, Ch. I, and cf. Levin 1965); in fact NiimaIjlsa pays no attention to the deep structure which represents competence and which was studied' so intensively by the grammarians. It is clear, at any rate, that the view according to which the word order of utterances is fixed, is not primarily relevant to a linguistic investigation into the properties of sentences. Kumarila Bhatta in the Tantraviirttikii gives better examples when commenting upon this passage and also introduces an additional distinction between different kinds of semantic anomalies: agnir miirdhii iti yo'rthaiJ pratiyate sa miirdhiignir ity aneniipity anarthako niyamaiJ 'the meaning of agnir murdhd is the same as that of murdha agnii;, hence fixing the order is pointless'. However, the determination of order is meaningful 'in the case of stems, affixes and compounds' (prakrtipratyayasamlise$u), for example
INDIAN T;
These are the MiTI unorthodox views (
fixed-order argumen siitra 44). It is a littI, pararn 'the opponer that mantras are m, ko niyamo na dr${a
any rate what is obse order they occur] ca Sabara also hints' unseen result which correctly performed satsv apy updyiinta vrttau niyattidr$!amc.
other means [to exp: word order [viSi$liil means are discarde<
is established that n Later in his work a controversy betw, different from ordi considers both lang difference, fncludiul a fixed order (niyai
language. Kumaril, other reasons, beca words and sounds E padavarvavi$ayatval These discussiom
indragni 'Indra and Agni', rajapuru$a 'king's man' and ni$kausambi/J 'one who has left Kausambi'. He continues: yukta~, tatra viparyaye'pasabddrthdnyatvdnarthakyaprasangiit 'here it is reasonable, since, if the order is reversed, an incorrect form [apasabda], a different meaning [arthanyatva] or no meaning at all [iinarthakya] would result'. Examples follow: because of Pal)ini 2.2.33 (see above, page 25) agnindriiv ity asiidhutvarn 'agnindrau is not well-formed'. Furthermore, punqariija ity arthanyatvarrz kausdmbinir ity anarthakatvam 'puru$ariija would have a different meaning [i.e., "man's king"] and kauslimbinii; no meaning at all'. (Note that a .difference is made
to word order in 1
between the first and the third form, though both are ungrammatical; it is felt, apparently, that to the first, but not to the last, some meaning could be ascribed.)
laukikavyavt l'Gidike$U tu
46
agree unanimously
tinction between th' order of the spokel distinction between of ordinary speech quotation, attribub
matical philosophy
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
GRAMMAR I
'ir that reason been d, fixing the order lingful expressions Indra and Agni". ress any meaning', )
, opponent is that in sentences. And ',deed relevant for ,He language in as
, 24). By the time ,nee is known (it ,n type and token, 'ms are concerned
':okens of sentence : the Mlmal]'lsa is nance, but not of
in fact Mimal]'lsa ; competence and clear, at any rate, aces is fixed, is not ~rties
of sentences.
, examples when itional distinction "rdha iti yo'rthab
'the meaning of 'lxing the order is ngful 'in the case ,~u), for example !;~kausiimbib-
'one Faye'pasabdiirthii-
if the o~der is ing [a/'thiinyatva) s follow: because
utvam 'agnindrau r.va1]t kausiimbinir ning [i.e., Hman's
These are the Mimal]'lsa renderings and first reactions with regard to the unorthodox views of the followers of Kautsa. The final answer to the fixed-order argument is given in a later sidra of the Mimarrzsasiitra (1.2,4, siitra 44). It is a little disappointing, but quite commonsensical: aviruddharrz param 'the opponent's view is not inconsistent [i.e., with our own view that mantras are meaningful]'. Sabara explains this further: kamam anarthako niyamo na
dr~{am
apramtil)am 'perhaps the fixed order is pointless; at
any rate what is observed [i,e., that the words do convey meaning in whatever order they occur) cannot be rejected' (ed. Anandasrama, 155). Sabara also hints that the mantras with their fixed order may establish the unseen result which according to the Mlmal]'lsa philosophers is the fruit of correctly performed ritual activities, Kumarila Bhatta developes this further: satsv apy upiiytintare~u viSi~!tinupi1rvikamantraviSe.Jiimlliiniid upayiilltaranivrttau niyatiidr.J!amtitrakalpanayti siddham arthtibhidhdnam 'even if there are
other means [to express the same meaning), only what possesses a particular word order [viSi~tanupiirvika) is recognised as a mantra, When the other means are discarded the fixed unseen result may be reached. Therefore it is established that mantras convey meaning', Later in his work Kumarila returns to the same topic (1.3,9). He reports a controversy between an opponent, who claims that the Vedic language is different from ordinary (laukika) language, and the author himself, who considers both languages as identical. The opponent enumerates points of difference, including the fact that 'words and sentences' (padaviikya) have a fixed order (niyata) in the Veda but a free order (aniyata) in ordinary language. Kumarila argues against this that the two are identical, among other reasons, because sentences are only c~nstructed differently but the words and sounds are not different (wikyatatsOlmihamiitranibandhaniipannapadavarvavi~ayatvavyapadeSiivibhiigiit) (ed.' Anandasrama, 291). These discussions show that, even if there is some uncertainty with regard to word order in the utterances of the Veda, the Mlmal]'lsa philosophers agree unanimously that word order in ordinary language is free. The distinction between the fixed word order of Vedic utterances and the free word order of the spoken language is most probably related to a much broader distinction between the general fixedness of Vedic utterances and the freedom of ordinary speech. This view is formulated for example in the following quotation, attributed to Vardhamana and found in the chapter on grammatical philosophy of a 14th-century survey of philosophical doctrines:
lifference is made ;rammatical; it is
laukikavyavahare~u yathe~tarrz ce~tatiirrz
neaning could be
vaidike~u
tu
miirge~u vise~oktif:z
janab pravartatam (Sarvadarsanasarrzgraha 1951, 291)
47
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
'In ordinary speech men may proceed according to wish, But in Vedic paths precise enunciation must be employed.' (cf. transl. Cowell, 205). The later speculations ofthe Mlmamsa philosophers and their controversies with\ other schools (Buddhists, grammarians, logicians) display a variety of viewpoints and doctrines with regard to sentences and their meaning. These will not, however, be referred to here (cf. e.g. Staal 1967b). Though this literature is now becoming better known and understood, it would still be premature to state that it no,vhere deals with word order. From what we know at present, however, it seems unlikely that any extensive discussions of this topic occur. Syntactic relations or mutual expectancy (iikiink.ii) are often referred to, but they are always independent of word order; they are concerned with sal]1bandha. 'Proximity' (sal]1nidhi), which is another condition for sentencehood, does not refer to word order but to the requirement that words, if they are to convey any meaning, should not be uttered at long intervals (e.g. Kunjunni Raja 1963, 166-9). According to the Miinameyodaya, a late work on Mlmarp.sa epistemology, the rival Mlmarp.sa philosopher Prabhakara Guru did not even understand this requirement, which should be interpreted as referring to sounds or words (sabdasal]1nidhi); he merely considered 'prox!mity of understanding' (buddhisal]1nidhi) (ed. Kunhan Raja &Suryanarayana Sastri, 100). There were many discussions, finally, regaf(iing the order of sminds in an utterance, as well as speculations· about the question how sentences are understood as a unity after the phonemes have been heard in linear sequence. But this again is a different topic from word order. . That the Kautsa controversy continued to be regarded as a topic worthy of discussion even as late as the 14th century, appears from Saya!)a's commentary on the Rgveda (see above, p. 25). Since Saya!)a's treatment is again similar to that of the Nirukta and of the philosophers of the Mlmamsa, it may be sufficient to refer to Oertel's work for a translation of the text (Oertel 1930, 58-60). Saya!)a represents the opponent as saying that mantras are recited in a fixed order, though their meaning could also be expressed by a different arrangement of the words. However, it is not the meaning of mantras that counts, but their correct recitation leading to the required results. Saya!)a states in reply, that he nowhere disagrees with this contention. He merely claims that mantras, in addition to having certain effects, also have meaning. l9
The
passages discussed in this section from the Mahiibhii.yya and from MimaQ1sa do not throw any light on Frauwallner's suggestion of a later date for Patafijali (Frauwallner 1960). From the facts dealt with here it may be inferred that PatafijaIi, who certainly
19
48
INDIAN TH:
Summarizing, we rna unanimously that WOl regarded the order of' fixed is not very surpr mainly textual and, it certain limited develo' No general linguistic adhered to and theore to the constitution of not develop exclusivel: language which char: Mlmamsa philosophe needed. This impulse stressed the importan1 infinity of the express to perfection by Po!)ir The difference betw with the help of a quo bei ng discussed is the, himself. "Is it not sa but are eternal? - Quit syllables in them. "20
knew the Nirukta (see ah Mimams(isiitra; for whilst
1957, 1E6-79), he does nOl in the context of the co laimini's date is quite un' 2nd century A.D.) this d< with regard to Frlluwal1m Frauwallner's low assessrn dissimilar to the views dt reflect a philosophic bias underrates the relevance ( such views as expressed i Kunst patanjaleischer Dm und wider gegeneinander ihren Resultaten vorgeftih Interpreten entschuldbar : fassung eines Arguments: 1940,22 (ULe texte est eel grande rigueur. Le raisOi Patafijali nous permet seu· 20 nallll coktanl na hi cell(. tv aSOll varl)iinllpiirvi sa',
1932,313).
GRAMMAR
o wish,
nployed.' ansI. Cowell, 205). .their controversies,
Iisplay a variety of '. eir meaning. These 167b). Though this :I, it would still be er. From what we Isive discussions of
ncy (akank~a) are rd oJder; they are :h is another canto the requirement not be uttered at ling to the M iina.e rival Mimarp.sa this requirement, s (§abdasaf[lnidhi); idhisaf/midhi) (ed. ,rder of sounds in how sentences are in linear sequence.
as a topic worthy rs from SayaQa's a1).a's treatment is
: of the Mlmarpsa, htion of the text .ying that mantras also be expressed Jt the meaning of
s to
the required
es with this conlng certain effects,
I from Mimarpsa do ltafijali (FrauwaIIner lfijali, who certainly
INDIAN THEORISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
Summarizing, we may conclude that the Indian theorists agreed almost unanimously that word order in Sanskrit is free. That the Vedic ritualists regarded the order of words in specified utterances from the Vedic corpus as fixed is not very surprising, since it is due to the fact that their interest was mainly textual and, in a sense, philological. This could at most lead to a certain limited development of phonetics, and this indeed has taken place. No general linguistic theory can, however, be evolved when utterances are adhered to and theoretical construction, which leads away from utterances to the constitution of sentences, is repudiated. The study of grammar could not develop exclusively from the limited assumptions regarding the nature of language which characterize the speculation of (he Vedic ritualists and Mlmarpsa philosophers. For linguistics to originate, a new impetus was. needed. This impulse was provided by the grammatical tradition, which stressed the importance not only of common usage (loka) but also of the infinity of the expressions of language. This new development was carried to perfection by Pa!)ini and his followers. The difference between the two approaches may be once more illustrated with the help of a quotation from Patafijali's MGhiibha~ya. The issue which is being discussed is the eternality of the Veda, accepted of course by Patafijali himself. "Is it not said", he says, "that the Vedas were not composed,
but are eternal? - Quite so, but it is their sense that is so, not the order of the syllables in them. "20
knew the Nirukta (see above, note 12). was not familiar with the development of the MimofJ1sosfitra; for whilst he was both intere-sted and versed in ritual matters (see e.g. Puri 1957,166-79), he does not show familiarity with the Mima:rpsa discussion on word order in the context of the controvers:y of Kautsa (see also page 49 and note 20). Since Jaimini's date is quite uncertain (estimates vary between the 2nd century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D.) this does not lead to any definite conclusion. The same can be said with regard to Frauwallner'$ discovery of an early Mima.rpsa. text in the Mahobhti$ya. Frauwallner's low assessment of Patai'ijali's scholarship and place in Indian thol!ght (not dissimilar to the views defended in Scharfe 1961, but SAe my review 1963b) scems to reflect a philosophic bias that overrates the importance of epistemological issues and underrates the relevance of language for philosophy, It is surely preferable to abide by such views as expressed ir~ Thiemc 1935b, 181 (H ... die Er6rterung ... zeigt die ganze Kunst patanjaleischcr Darstellung. In abstraktester Form werden die Gesichtspunkte flir und wider gegeneinander ausgespielt, werden uns .die verschiedenen Dberlegungen in ihren Resultaten vorgeftihrt. Die Ausdrucksweise ist knapp genug, Missverstandnisse des Interpreten entschuldbar zu machen, und doch wieder so genau, dass die falsche Auffassung eines Arguments sich unweigerlich beim nachsten vereat und racht"), or Renou 1940,22 ("Le texte est ecrit en prose simple, d'aspect assez archaique, concise et d'une grande rigueur. Le raisonnement est d'une admirable pertinence ... Ia dialectique de Patafijali nous permet s'cule d'arriver au coeur de la pensee paJ)ineenne"). 20 nanu coktam na hi cchandiimsi kriyallte lIityiilli cchandiifl1sfti I yady apy artho nityo yii tv aSQU varJJiinupiirvi sii'nityii (ed. Kielhorn 2.315, lines 13-4; also quoted Hiriyanna 1932,313).
49
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
We have at the same time seen that the Indian grammarians paid attention not only to sentences, but also to sentence construction, to grammatical relations and to what is nowadays referred to as deep structure. Word order was clearly excluded from deep structure. In this connection transformational rel\ltions were discovered, and much attention was given to the semantic rellitions between transformationally related sentences.
WESTERN
Western descriptions beginning, presented given by the Indian t to surface structure, corpus, are character there exists a regular it can be explained. Bergaigne, finds full e the study of the Sata} examples of Sanskrit taken to be more appr speech, uninfluenced Delbrueck arrived at· Sanskrit; (2) exceptio Anfang eines Satzes Zl des Sinnes auf ihm Ii. This 'traditional' " at the beginning; the but the Accusative irr precede Substantives, Prepositions follow ( This could be dese help of the following
VP->
Prep· NPThis may be symb( 1
The 'Prep-Phrase' Con
termination of Dative, In
50
~
GRAMMAR
CHAPTER III
.rians paid attention on, to grammatical ·ucture. Word order on transformational 'en to the semantic
WESTERN SANSKRITISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
Western descriptions of word order in Sanskrit have, especially in the beginning, presented a picture which is fundamentally different from that given by the Indian theorists, These descriptions, which are often confined to surface structure, and always based upon study of a specified textual corpus, are characterized by the view, adhered to almost universally, that there exists a regular or traditional word order and that deviations from it can be explained. This view, already defended by Th, Benfey and A. Bergaigne, finds full expression in Delbrueck 1878, a monograph based upon the study of the Satapathabrdlll11alJa, a large corpus and one of the oldest examples of Sanskrit prose, A prose text is deliberately chosen since it is taken to be more appropriate for an investigation into word order in ordinary s!,eech, uninfluenced as it is by the exigencies of metre and versification, Delbrneck arrived at two conclusions: (1) there is a traditional word order in Sanskrit; (2) exceptions to this order are due to the fact, "dass ein Wort dem Anfang eines Satzes zurtickt ode, an den Anfang rtickt, sobald ein Nachdrnck des Sinnes auf ihm liegt" (1878, 76): . This 'traditional' word order is described as follows, The subject occurs at the beginning; the Verb at the end; Dative and Accusative in between, but the Accusativejmmediately precedes the Verb, Adjectives and Genitives precede Substantives, Participles and Appositions follow Substantives and Prepositions follow Cases (i.e., are Postpositions), This could be described in a system similar to Chomsky 1965, with the help of the following rules: S --+ NP"VP VP --+ (Prep-Phrase)"(Prep-Phrase)" '" "(NP)"V 1 Prep-Phrase --+ NP"(Prep) NP--+(S)"N.
(28) (29) (30) (31)
This may be symbolized by the following tree: The 'Prep-Phrase' Constituents may also be used to introduce Noun-Phrases with the termination of Dative, Instrumental, Ablative, and Locative.
1
51
L
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
WESTERN SAN
s
---
VP
NP
/\
S
N
~
) \
)\ S
Prep
N
(viii) S
N
on account of two cc Bereiche der ErfahrUl findet" ; secondly: "W so miisste sich eine vorhanden ist" (ibid., impressions based up. upon impressions whi Delbrueck's researc: the framework for the adhered to Delbrueck' sentence taken from iiciil'yo dal'bhapavitrap, sfitra'11 prmJayati sma
For Participles and Appositions the following transformational rule will be required: NP
S
N
/~
N
with purifying darbha with great care' (ed. J the help of the rules (
(32)
S
For nominal sentences, i.e., sentences where the Verb is deleted, the Subject and the Predicate change places (1878, 26-8). In other words, a transformation basically of the form:
The required anal~ page 54 (diagram ix). Here S is: iiciil'Yo Y' rules with care'; S 1 is place'; S2 is:: .iicarya aciiryo darbhapavitraj hand'; S4 is: iiciiryab
(33)
NP,
sucii; 'the place is pun we have not taken inti darbhapavitrapd(lib an that the branches con In this way the fol iicdl'yab darbhapavitl'o avakiise upavi§yati ii(
is assumed (alternatively, two transformations may be assumed, one for the deletion of V and another for the reversal of order of the two Noun phrases). Delbrueck devoted an interesting discussion to the question whether perhaps conclusion (2) mentioned above would suffice for the description of word order in Sanskrit: "Man konnte zwar gegen diese Beobachtung einen Einwand erheben und behaupten: die Wortstellung war vollkommen frei, und lediglich diktiert durch das Gesetz,.dass das sHirker betonte SatzgIied vorn steht; die Inder betonten eben das Subject besonders stark, darum eroffnet dieses stets den Satz u.s.w." (1878, 76). Delbrueck rejects this view
52
Before deriving this, J to be applied, yieldin vitrapii1)i/;z iiciiryal) pT yatnena mahan yatna!
sively introduced by 2
This passage in the M,
Scharfe (1961. 10) StaaI1963b,256.
inferr~
~
GRAMMAR
WESTERN SANSKRlTISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
~)
A'
S
N
(viii)
ormational rule will
(32j
1erb is deleted, the . In other words, a
,
,P,
(33)
.ssumed, one for the ,two Noun phrases). , question whether for the description . diese Beobachtung mg war vollkommen ker betonte Satzglied )fiders stark, darum eck rejects this view
on account of two considerations: first, he doubts "ob sich irgendwo jm Bereiche der Erfahrung ein solcher Sprachzustand [i.e., free word order] findet"; secondly: "Ware die Ordnung der Wortervollkommen frei gewesen, so musste sich eine grossere Mannigfaltigkeit zeigen, als thatsachlich vorhanden ist" (ibid., 76-7). The latter argument seems to be motivated by impressions based upon frequency of occurrence of certain sequences, i.e., upon impressions which are essentially of a statistic nature. Delbrueck's researches, given wider currency in Delbrueck 1888, provided the framework for the subsequent elucidation of the problem. Speyer (1896) adhered to Delbrueck's view and illustrated it with an example of a Sanskrit sentence taken from the Mahabhd_ya (Speyer 1896, § 247): pramd(wbhiita iiciiryo darhhapavitrapd1J,ib suctiv avakdse prtlnmukha upavisya mahatii yatnena siitrarrz prGl:zayati sma 'the competent teacher, having sat down facing East with purifying darbha grass in his hand in a pure place, composed the rules with great care' (ed. Kielhorn 1,39 lines 10-1).' This can be analysed with the help of the rules (28)-(31), adding:
V...., B"Tns.
. (34)
The required analysis may be symbolized by the (simplified) tree on page 54 (diagram ix). Here S is: tictiryo yatnena sutraf{1 prm;zayati sma 'the teacher composed the rules with care'; S 1 is: tictiryo 'vakdsa upaviSyati 'the teacher sits down in a place'; S2 is: dcdrya!:z pramiilJabhiita~1 'the teacher is competent'; S3 is: dcdryo darbhapavitrapd(lib 'the teacher has purifying' darbha grass in his hand'; S4 is: dcdrya!:z prtiIimukha!:z 'the teacht:r faces· East'; S5 is: avakasab suci(]. 'the'pla:::e is pure'; and S6 is:'),at11o mahan 'the care is great'. Note that we have not taken into account that the nominal compounds pramtivabhiltab, darbhapavitrapdvib and prdnmukha/z are also derived t,ansformationally, so that the branches concerned are in fact longer. In this way the following string could be derived: dctiryab prdlinlukhab ticdrya!:z darbhapavitrapdlJib dcdrya(z pramiiJ;zabhuta~ dciirya(z avakiisal]. suci(z avakdse upaviSyati dciiryab yatna!:z mahdn yatnena suttan]. pra~1ayati sma . Defore deriving this, however, the transformational rules (32) and (33) have to be applied, yielding: dedryaf:z dedrya/;! pramiiQabhata/;l dedrya!; darbhapavitrapdlJib dciiryab priiJimukha/J. dciiryal;. avakdse sucil;. avaktisal;. upaviSyciti yatnena mahan yatnab siitram praljayati sma (note that the modifiers recursively introduced by S have been interpreted as Appositions). Applying 2 This passage in the Mahiibhii~ya elucidates the maxim: na yathii"loke tathii vyiikara1)e 'it is not so that what applies to ordinary speech applies to grammar itseU'(above,page 28).
Scharfe (1961, 10) inferred from this a magical background to Indian linguistics; but see Staal 1963b, 256.
53
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
WESTERN SA
5
precise rules for WOf(
~
~
)\
A
iiCii~yaQ prePfrases~:am
1\ A l\ Sl
N Prep-Phrase V
!\acaryal]
l\ v\ 5,
.N
NP
\
SI>
1\
praQa~ati
:::
II ... II2 " II, lIz-
N~m~:iin N·
(ix)
/'\CiiryaQ pramiiQabhutai> f\\VOkaSe
//\ v\ 5.
N
NP
!\iiCiiryaQ darbhapavitrapaQii> NP
VP
acaryaly
I
ava~:iaQ
T NP
sucii>
NP
pra.imukho/y
deletion and other transformations (defined in such a way that one occurrence of acaryab will occupy the desired place), this results in: pramalJabhiitab acaryab darhhapavitrapalJib pl'anmukhaiz sucau avakase upal'isya mallata yatllena sutram pralJayati sma. If sandhi rules are now applied, the result is almost the original sentence; pranmukhaiz is however in the wrong place. We cannot get this right, for example, by changing the order of embedding of any of the sentences 8 ... , 8., as the reader may verify. The results are, at " And so we are forced to conclude that Speyer's the most, almost correct. example is incorrect, despite the fact that every 8anskritist will immediately recognize how the sentence has to be interpreted semantically. This merely confirms our conclusion (above, page 36), that anyone who wishes to find 54
These particles are Partikeln stehen teil Worte angehiingt." I rules may be expreS1
N
upaVisYj!\ yatnena
S,
sentences he studies Iu § 249 of his syl which determine th. could adopt instead
The particle Ila, la.tl Following the de, mention Bloch 190( is nowhere discusse<
subordinate clauses, regular succession of
which ne calls 'dypti. nulle grace. Partout durete attirante d'un de la phrase, des d. Jamais elle ne s'inv{ l'interieur du system
la pensee ou dans la subordinate clause \\ mation, at least for the order established Canedo 1937 is a order. An earlier sin selected passages of
Wortstellung des A vollstandig frei" this a 'conviction pe
he studied gram mal nowadays be relegate Momente fUr die We
GRAMMAR
WESTERN SANSKRITISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
~
~ eS~~am
1\
B Tns prof)oyoti smo
precise rules for word order in Sanskrit will run into difficulties, provided the sentences he studies are not uncommonly short. In § 249 of his syntax, Speyer dealt with the position of certain particles which determine the entire sentence. Denoting such particles by II, one could adopt instead of (28): (28')
S .... II"NP"VP.
These particles are of two kinds: "Die den ganzen Satz bestimmenden Partikeln stehen teils an der Spitze des Satzes, teils werden sie dem ersten Worte angehiingt." If we interpret 'das erste Wort' as the first NP, Speyer's rules may be expressed by (28') and: .II -7 III, II2 II2 "NP"" NP"II 1 II I --+ ca, va, u, ha, svid, vai, khalu, kila, tu, na, ... II2 --+ atha, uta, api, param, kim, ...
(ix)
The particle na, lastly, occurs "auch wohl unmittelbar vor das Verbum". Following the development of the Western study of Sanskrit syntax, we mention Bloch 1906 only to observe that in this monograph word order is nowhero discussed. Minard (1936) on the other hand, studying certain subordinate clauses, again from the Satapathabriihmava,o described the regular succession of subordinate and main clause in the compound sentence which he calls 'dyptique', in almost lyrical terms: "Nulle fantaisie, d'ailleurs, nulle grace. Partout ... rigueur, un eclat sans defaut camme sans sourire, hi durete attii·ante d'un mecanisme de precision. Et d'abord, des deux membres de la phrase, des deux volets di.!o dyptique, la sequence meme est reglee. Jamais elle ne s'inverse, qu'on. n'en puisse trouver l'origine et la valeur a l'int~rieur du systeme ou dans ses environs immooiats, dans la demarche de la pensee ou dans la pression du contexte" (Minard 1936, 3). Since it is the subordinate chuse which always precedes, this can be regarded as a confirmation, at least for one type of sentence from the Satapathabriihmava, of the order established by rule (31). Canedo 1937 is a monograph especially devoted to the study of word order. An earlier similar monograph (Thommen 1903), largely based upon selected passages of the Sanskrit epic, is dismissed with the words: "Die Wortstellung des M ahiibhiirata, die er besonders untersucht hatte, ist vollstiindig frei" (Canedo 1937, 5; Gonda 1952, however, was to call this a 'conviction personelle', not a 'demonstration'). Canedo claimed that he studied grammatical regularities, and did not deal with what would nowadays be relegated to performance: "Die Wichtigkeit der psychologischen Momente fUr die Wortstellung soli selbstverstiindlich nicht in Abrede gestellt 0
hat onc!~ccurrence in: pramiiIJabhiitab ~ upaviSya mahata 'plied, the result is 1e wrong place. We :r of embedding of o. The results are, at :Iude that Speyer's st will immediately tically. This merely who wishes to find
55
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
werden; aber die 'ErkIarung' gehort eher zur Psychologie des Stiles" (6). Canedo objected to Delbrlleck's distinction between traditional and 'occasional' word order, but mainly on historical grounds: the so-called traditional word order may be recent, while the so-called occasional word order is often ancient. Speaking about the position of the Verb, Canedo sa;~: "Durch aile Perioden der Sprache ist die Endstellllng am hiiufigsten (habituell), hiiufiger als die beiden anderen zusammen, und die Anfangsstellung ist hiiufiger als die Mittelstellung" (27). Adopting (14) and (15) as initial rules (above, page 12), the position of the Verb which comes next in frequency could be derived by applying (16) and (17). The third and rarest position could be derived by applying (17) only. By legislating thus, however, transformational rules seem to be used to derive less frequent expressions from more frequent ones, and the sig-
nificance of such a procedure is not immediately clear. In accordance with Canedo's approach the initial position of the Verb could be partly accounted for by observing that at least in part it characterizes sentences that are derived transformationally from underlying Phrase-markers containing special transformational markers (e.g., question 'morphemes, etc.). But sentences immediately derived from a base Phrasemarker (e.g., those with astf or those which, speaking semantically, continue a story or a description) may also have the Verb in initial position. The
situation with regard to middle position ofthe Verb is similar. On the whole we shall see that the views of Western Sanskritists would have to be adapted, if an overall distinction between underlying and derived sentences is adopted. With regard to the structure of nominal sentences Canedo disagreed with Delbrueck and Speyer: "Voranstellung des Subjekts list] viel hiiufiger als Voranstellung des Priidikatnomen" (36). As the most common order for the (verbal) Active sentence he regards the following disjunction: either 'Subjekt-Objekt-Priidikat' or 'Pradikat-Subjekt-Objekt' (39). Accordingly, two of the three alternatives mentioned earlier (27) are considered as common ('habituell'). For the Passive he lists: either'Instrumental-Pradikat-Subjekt' or 'Instrumental-Subjekt-Pradikat'. Out of the many views on more specific matters a few more may be mentioned here. While 'prepositions' and 'preverbs' sometimes precede and sometimes follow their Noun or Verb (for the prepositions a rule is given, but it is 'nicht absolut' and 'versagt oft' (44)), thelmesis of the Vedic preverb receives special treatment. The following example is quoted frequently: apa tamal.z piipmdnalJ1 hate 'he strikes [hate] the darkness, the evil away [apar (Taittiriyasa/!Ihitii 2.1.10). Though this kind of tmesis could also occur in English (as in the translation just given), Canedo considered it for Sanskrit as "in der Natur der Sprache bedingt; sie ist eine natlirliche, 56
WESTERN Sj
nicht eine stilistisch the adoption of a n
(where Prey denote: a transformational rearrangement.
With regard to t consisting of Noun Attr-Prap-Subst; A would follow direc1 51); for the other the elements would Canedo considered Instr-Lok-Akk-Verl that they are not inc
As to the relationsh Erscheinungen der combinations is fou
the N ouu it qualifi, In other words, Adj disjuuct classes. Canedo's monogl wide generalization which are primarilj result in an emmler,
Within the same fr Gonda (1951; 1952 while at the same ti more varied and ex consideration of a
takes exception to 3 Compare Dover'S jud tive general statement ( extreme; it amounts to
and zyx also occur'" ( always almost-universa between sentences with Sanskrit (Greenberg 191
GRAMMAR
WESTERN SANSKRITISTS ON WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
ie des Stiles" (6). ,ditional and 'octhe so-called tra-
nicht eine stilistische Eigentiimlichkeit derselben" (88). This would prevent the adoption of a rule such as (15) (above, page 12), unless:
occasional word
V ~Prevr.Bv
:he Verb, Canedo mg am haufigsten ), und die Anfangs-
(where Prey denotes 'Preverb' and Bv denotes 'Verbal Base') is added and a transformational rule is subsequently applied to effectuate the required
',J, the position of 1 by applying (16) , by applying (17) seem to be used )nes, and the sig-
:ition of the Verb in part it charac-
rearrangement.
With regard to the combimition of a Preposition with a Noun-Phrase consisting of Noun + Attribute, Canedo mentioned three possibilities: Attr-Prap-Subst; Attr-Subst-Prap; Subst-Attr-Prap. Only the middle case would follow directly from the rules of the base (i.e., from (31) on page 51); for the other two additional transformational rules for rearranging the elements would be required. As regards the order of Noun-Phrases, Canedo considered the following four as the most common arrangements: Instr-Lok-Akk-Verb; Lok-Akk-Verb; Instr-Akk-Verb; Dat-Akk-Verb. Note that they are not inconsistent with each other, and could be formulated as:
from underlying ers (e.g., question
m a base Phrase-
{
(Instr) - (LOk)} -Ak-er. k V b (Dat)
mtically, continue
As to the relationship between Genitive and Noun, "eine der verwickeltsten
tial position. The ilar. On the whole ave to be adapted, ,tences is adopted. do disagreed with I viel hiiufiger als mon order for the tion: either 'Sub-
Erscheinungen del' altindischen Syntax" (60), either of the two possible combinations is found. Whether, finally, an Adjective precedes or follows the Noun it qualifies, may depend on the meaning of the Adjecti,e (64). In other words, Adjectives would have to be grouped in two not necessarily disjunct classes. Canedo's monograph shows, among other things, that attempts at too
Accordingly, two dered as common
,Pradikat,i'!ubjekt'
ew more
\Vide generalizations which take only surface structure iuto account and
which are primarily based upon impressions of frequency, are bound to result in an enUDleration of various alternatives and numerous exceptions. 3 Within the same framework a much more careful attitude is adopted in Gonda (1951; 1952),' where the problem area is delineated more precisely - while at the same time the material upon which the investigation is based is
may be
more varied and extensive. Gonda's work is moreover distinguished by his
:imes precede and
consideration of a much greater variety of sentence types. Gonda (1952) takes exception to Delbrueck's view accepted by Speyer, Thommen and
:15
a rule is given,
the Vedic preverb lloted frequently: ,ss, the evil away rnzesis could also
odo considered it .t eine natilrliche,
3 Compare Dover's judgment about studies of Greek word order: "More often, an objective general statement of the facts appears, to the seeker after rules, inconclusive in the extreme; it amounts to saying <xyz and xzy occur, but, on the other hand, yxz, yzx, zxy, and zyx also occur'" (Dover 1960, 1). Greenberg's universals of word order are nearly always almost-univt:
57
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
Canedo, that word order should be studied exclusively from prose material: "Nous ne possedons dans cette prose gauche, raide et monotone de l'ancienne litterature theologique et sacerdotale qu'llne 'refraction litteraire'
speciale de la langue vivante" (6). The poetic tradition in Sanskrit, on the other hand, is not "par lit, artificielle" (7). His conclusions are therefore basJp upon an investigation into various kinds of texts, prose as well as poetry, Vedic as well as classical Sanskrit, and including the epic, the drama, and other literary work. Some of the main results are the following. The Verb occurs most frequently in final position. In metrical klivya and in the Vi~1Jupurti1Ja, however, it occurs in the middle. Initial position of the Verb is due to a variety of specific reasons, such as that the sentence is in the Imperative, the Future, or that it expresses a question, an exclamation, or the intention of the speaker; that the verb is asti or a verb of knowing, often in the first Person; that the sentence is a subordinate clause, expresses the co~tinuation of the previous sentence, or, more general, the continuation of a narrative; or that the Verb is emphasized. Apparently, most of these cases are derived sentences where transformations are anyhow required. Middle position of the Verb, as for example in the texts quoted above, is similarly explained by special considerations, e.g., that other elements are put at the end of the sentence in order to facilitate transition to the next sentence, or else that the Verb follows an absolute case or a case which expresses time, place, etc. (cf. 'English 'here lies your book'). Despite these regularities, to which there are almost always exceptions (cf. above, page 57, note 3), the author arrives at the following clearly formulated interpretation of the m2.terial: "En ce qui concerne l'ordre des 6iements de l'enonce, l'indo-europeen comportait une grande liberte, c.-a-d. que'cet ordre n'avait presqu' aucune valeur grammaticale [my italics]. Aucun mot n'avait dans la phrase indo-europeenuF. "ne place definie et constante. II va sans dire que ceci n'exclut pas l'existence d'ordre habituel dans certains tours et certains types de phrases: comme il resulte des recherches qui vont etre mentionnees, on trouve souvent dans des phrases analogues de plusieurs langues indo-europeennes anciennes un ordre des mots a peu pres constant et identique" (Gonda 1952, 71). In order to further illustrate and support some of these generalizations, the author finally provides some numerical data regarding the number of occurrences of the Verb in initial, middle and final position, for selected passages taken from a variety of texts. In this connection various sentence types are again distinguished. Gonda's investigations show that word order, even if it performs no grammatical function (whatever this means exactly), is relatively fixed in a 58
WESTERN SA
number of cases. E accounts for these fa basic word order. It sirnilar analysis whel belong to the base, w a fresh analysis mig along similar lines, a Summarizing, we IDa a traditional, habitm When these investig' with and various h sentence were postul has no grammatical Western Sanskritist, Sanskrit texts.
GRAMMAR
)m prose material: monotone de I'an;fraction litteraire'
n Sanskrit, on the lions are therefore
prose as well as )~ ding the epic, the
i,
b occurs most fre-
WESTERN SANSKRITISTS GN WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT
number of cases. He provides, however, no overall generalization which accounts for these facts or which leads to a theory about a fundamental or basic word order. It is not immediately clear, on the other hand, whether a similar analysis when confined to the types of sentence that can be said to belong to the base, would not reveal a more regular pattern. For this purpose a fresh analysis might be required, which would, however, when pursued along similar lines, at the most yield certain statistical regularities.
1upurtiIJa, however,
Summarizing, we may conclude that Western Sanskritists started to describe a traditional, habitual or merely preponderant fixed word order in Sanskrit.
[ue to a variety of
When these investigations became more precise, more exceptions were met
tive, the Future, or
with and various habitual arrangements of words for various kinds of sentence were postulated. It was also iucreasingly realized that word order has no grammatical significance or value. But most of the investigations by Western Sanskritists were based upon a specifically selected corpus of Sanskrit texts.
ion of the speaker; st Person; that the .on of the previous e; or that the Verb ,d sentences where )f the Verb, as for ,d by special conof the sentence in :Ise that the Verb ne, place, etc. (cf.
\
always exceptions : following clearly lUcerne l' ordre des mde liberto, c.-a-d. :my italics]. Aucun efinie et constante. )ituel dans certains echerch~s qui vont logues de plusieurs . peu pres constant
:se generalizations,
ing the number of sition, for selected a various sentence if it performs no eIatively fixed in a
59
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
On superficial examination the views on word order in Sanskrit propounded by Indian theorists and by Western Sanskritists appear to be greatly at variance. Almost all Indian theorists did, either implicitly or explicitly, regard word order as free. For no independent word is a specific position in the sentence prescribed. Sentences which differ in the arrangement of their words only, are considered as equivalent and s.ynonymous. In so far as a difference of meaning or different shades of meaning can be found at all, this is not considered relevant: Most Western Sanskritists, on the other hand, reject the idea that word order in Sanskrit is free. According to them there are certain preferential, traditional, habitual or, at least, most frequent arrangements. Other arrangements, which also occur, tend to be treated as special cases or as exceptions to an overall regUlarity. Though more detailed investigations have shown that there are many different arrangements of words to account for different types of sentences, there is again a preferential order within each type. These descdptions, which generally offer approximations to regularities, jf not rules, for the order of words, seem to be supported by frequency counts. On closer inspection the gap between Indian and Western approaches appears to be narrow. This is not to say that the divergence is merely a matter of language and preseritation. The two approaches, although to some extent complementary, are basically different. They agree howe,'e, in that, on the whole, word order has no grammatical significance. 1 For the Indian See especially Gonda 1952, 71, quoted above, page 58. For Latin cf. Marouzeau, III, 1949,195: "La notion de ce qu'on appelle l'ordre grammatical n'est pas mains trompeuse [i.e., than 'logical order'}: dans une langue a construction libre, la grammaire ne commandel'ordre que dans des cas exceptiollnels, qu'il suffit d'enregistrer,et qui ne comportent pas d'explication de principe ...... For Greek cf. Dover 1960, 3; "If two utterances are syntacticaIly identical, but differ in order, this does not prove that the determinants of their different orders are unknowable; it proves only that syntactical identity does not suffice to determine identity of order; and our task becomes the exploration of all the respects in which the two utterances are dissimilar, in the hope of finding there the vital difference which determined their .difference of order" (note that if this task pertains to utterances, it seems to pertain in particular to perfonnance). Dover's study leads to the following conclusion: "It is clear that these statistics are very far indeed from establishing for 'Classical Greek' simpliciter anything worth calling a syntactical rule of word order. Extended to a much greater variety of authors and texts, they would no doubt give us an
1
60
grammarians the pl relations between l1 similar grammatical The order of words, cance; it is entirely s may be further anal certain opponents VI 'restrictions on usag to' (above, page 28) nents, the followers :fix~d in certain utter fixed in sentences ir fixed, for example, . page 25). Adapting these cr we may state that th the grammaticality , exceptions, as well a are important, alth01 only to the extent 1 this reason it may b would have led to m a !heory of languag tences, and derived clearly aware of th, easy, but wrong, to cally abnormal' wit investigating a langu and the order PS inv the rule in terms suc. questions'. Statemen fact of a kind with with the pair of disc interrogation detern: The difference bet of Sanskrit word on mainly interested in was - mainly interes interesting picture of tl increasing force that all secondary phenomena"
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
NS )
,
mskrit propounded ,r to be greatly at icitly or explicitly, . a specific position
:he arrangement of ymous. In so far as an be found at all, tists, on the other According to them east, most frequent nd to be treated as ough more detailed
grammarians the purport of this doctrine is quite specific: grammatical relations between words in the sentence, i.e., kiiraka relationships and similar grammatical relationships are expressed by inflexion and the like. The order of words of the sentence, on the other hand, has no such significance; it is entirely superficial. The relationship between the two approaches may be further analysed by reminding ourselves of Palaiijali's reaction to certain opponents who attached significance to word order in the Szitra: 'restrictions on usage' (prayoganiyama), said Patafijali, 'are not here clung to' (above, page 28). Similarly, the MimaZ)lsakas agreed with their opponents, the followers of Kautsa, at least in one respect: even if word order is
fixed in certain utterances
(ucctira~a),
this does not imply that word order is
fixed in sentences in the. same manner in which the order of elements .is fixed, for example, in nominal compounds and inside other words (above,
page 25). Adapting these criticisms to the interpretation of the Western approach, we may state that the latter deals with usage and utterances, rather than with the grammaticality of sentences. This also explains the large numbers of exceptions, as well as mutual contradictions. Of course, both kinds of study are important, although the study of usage and utterances tends to be frnitful only to the extent that the study of grammaticality is presupposed. For
arrangements of
this reason it may be assumed that the Western Sanskritists' investigations
again a preferential :ally- offer approxi-
would have led to more definite results, had they adopted the perspective of a theory of language which distinguishes between underlying or base sen-
1t
words, seem to be
tences, and derived sentences. Dover, in his study of Greek word order, is
,clearly aware of the difference between grammatical and frequent: "It is 'estern approaches :e is merely a matter although to some :e however ,in that,
:e.' For the,Indian in cf. Mar0l~~aU, III, t pas moins trompeuse la grammaire ne COlTI-
r, et qui ne comportent "If two utterances are 1t the determinants of
tical identity does not exploration of all the finding there the vital if this task p~rtains to er's study leads to the deed from establishing aI rule of word order.
d no doubt give us an
easy, but wrong, to equate 'statistically normal' with 'natural' and 'statisti-_ cally abnormal' with 'distorted', 'inverted', etc. If, for example, we were
investigating a language in which the order SP was invariable in statements and the order P S invariable in questions, it would be misleading to formulate the rule in terms such as: 'SP is normal, but this normal order is reverse~ in questions'. Statelnents are more numerous than questions, but that is not a
fact of a kind with which we are concerned; we should content ourselves with the pair of discoveries that (a) statement determines the order SP, (b) interrogation determines the order PS" (Dover 1960, 5). The difference between the Western and the Indian approach to the study of Sanskrit word order may be characterized by saying that the former was mainly interested in the use of language or in performance, while the latter was mainly interested in the underlying regularities of language or in interesting picture of the vagaries of individual preference - and therebY' suggest with increasing force that all patterns of order which are describable in syntactical terms are secondary phenomena" (ibid., 31).
61
~-~~~~-~-----
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
competence. The Indian grammarians were accordingly interested in rules, the Western Sanskritists in probabilities of occurrence and frequencies. In some cases where Western and Indian scholars arrived at similar results, this may be explained by observing that the Indian scholars also were inter~ este!;! in the utterances of the Vedic corpus and not in the sentences of the SanSfcrit (or, as the case may be, Vedic) language. In this connection it may be noted that the Indian theorists (including men like Apte) were Sans~ krit speakers, whereas Western Sanskritists have generally studied Sanskrit from the corpus of Sanskrit texts, in the same manner in which scholars of Latin have studied Latin. 2 It is not quite necessary to study Sanskrit as a dead language, confining oneself to a corpus of texts (even though this corpus is immensely large). The present use of Sanskrit as a spoken language should be compared less to the modern, than to the medieval use of Latin. The most widespread view of Western Sanskritists in this respect is formulated as follows by Wacker~ nagel-Renou: "Ceux-Ja memes qui etaient familiers avec Ie sanskrit parlaient concurremment une autre langue, plus populaire; Ie sanskrit avait a peu pres la position du latin au moyen age, de l'Mbreu chez les Juifs. Ajourd'hui meme, l:eJ!l.p~oi exclusif du sanskrit est tout au plus une gageure; cependant il serait faux de lui denier Ie caractere d'une langue parlee" (WackernagelRenou 1957, 21-2 and 86-7 notes 310, 312). Some passages of the Report of the Government of India Sanskrit Commission (1956-1957) are more explicit arid suggestive: "Just as many of the replies to the Questionnaire received by the Commission were in Sanskrit, .quite a number of interviews also took place in Sanskrit. It was not the Pandits alone who gave their evidence in Sanskrit..." (p. 9); "Even at the present day Sanskrit is very living, because a large num:ber of people use Sanskrit in their conversation, when they come from different parts of the country, and composition in Sanskrit, in both prose and verse, goes on almost unabated. It has been possible to write a history of recent Sanskrit literature ... " (p. 88). Whatever the precise significance of these statements, a theory of usage accounting for the arrangement of words in utterances has to be based upon a theory about the grammatical relations between words in sentences. It is becoming increasingly clear that "investigations of performance will proceed only so far as understanding of underlying competence permits" (Chomsky 1965, 10). 2 cr. Marouzeau 1953, 114 on Latin: "Ce qui nous manque pour assurer notrejugement. c'est Ie sens intime de la langue tel que Ie possedaient les sujets parlants; nous y devons suppleer par une interpretation laborieuse fondee sur des nbgles parfois sujettes a revision ou discussion."
62
Theoretical consie tinction between CO] casional' utterance VI
or probability value, violates a rule (cf. Ka cality and acceptab (Chomsky 1965, 11: examples of sentene apasyad ramo govinG unambiguous, mean
probability value tt different with respec grammatical in Engl (for it might mean Rama Govinda', 'ht perhaps be met wit The difference betw, inexplicable if the th described by a set of if it be assumed that those for English. The difference in 1 illustrated by consid mationally from a quoted by Patafijali ( uncommon, but they uncommon gramma many more students, course than ones we
auditors will have to revision" (Chomsky. govindasya riimo 'pas, transformationally d, (though for different While nobody woo ramo govindam apas exam pIes of two San the words but where be felt that two sucl well. Gonda often d, it is referred to expJ:
GRAMMAR
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
interested in rules, , and frequencies. l at similar results, tIS
also were int~r
te sentences of the this connection it ),
e Apte) were Sansly studied Sanskrit which scholars of lllguage, confining
immensely large). e compared less to :t widespread view lllows by Wacker, sanskrit parlaient nskrit avait
a peu
s Juifs. Ajourd'hni ~eure; cependant il :e" (Wackernageldia Sanskrit Commany of the
1st liS
. were in Sanskrit, ·it. It was not the
. 9); "Even at the ,ber of people use rerent parts of the 10 verse, goes on of recent ,Sanskrit a theory of usage ; to be based upon ls in senlences. It performance will Ipetence permits"
surer notre jugement, :lants; nous y devons :ois sl.\iettes it. revision
Theoretical considerations apart, there are specific cases where the distinction between competence and performance becomes explicit. An 'occasional' utterance which represents an occurrence with a low acceptability or probability value, is not the same as an ungrammatical sentence which violates a rule (cf. Katz & Fodor 1964, 27). Moreover, though both grammaticality and acceptability admit of degrees, their scales do not coincide (Chomsky 1965, 11). This may be seen from the comparison of simple examples of sentences from the base in English and Sanskrit. Whereas apasyad ramo govindam (cf. above, page 12) is perfectly grammatical and unambiguous, meaning 'Rama saw Govinda', but has perhaps a lower probability value than, e.g., ramo govindam apasyat, matters are quite different with respect to the string Rama Govinda saw, which is quite ungrammatical in English and in addition meaningless or at least ambiguous (for it might mean 'Rama saw Govinda', 'Govinda saw Rama', 'he saw
Rama Govinda', 'he saw Rama and Govinda', etc.), even though it may perhaps be met with under exceptional circumstances of English usage. The difference between apasyad ramo govindam and saw Rama Govinda is inexplicable if the theory is adhered to that word order in Sanskrit may be described by a set of grammatical rules just as can be done in English, even if it be assumed that the rules for Sanskrit would be more complicated than those for English. The difference in this respect between Sanskrit and English may also be illustrated by considering the interpretation of sentences derived transformationally from a generalised Phrase-marker. Sentences such as those quoted by Pataiijali (anarfvaham udahiiri ya ... : above, page 32) are perhaps uncommon, but they do not lack grammaticality any more than the similarly Uncommon grammatical English sentecce "Anyone who feels that if so many more students whom we haven't actually admitted are sitting in on the course than ones we have that the room had to be changed, then probably auditors will have to be excluded, is likely to agree that the curriculum needs revision" (Chomsky & Miller 1963, 286). On the other hand both Sanskrit govindasya ramo 'pasyan and English saW Govinda Rama, as -well as sentences transformalionally derived from their underlying base Phrase-markers, are (though for different reasons) ungrammatical. While nobody would object to saying that apasyad ramo govindam and ramo govindam apasyat are synonymous, it may not be difficult to find examples of two Sanskrit sentences which only differ in the arrangement of the words but where a difference in meaning is nevertheless felt. It may also be felt that two such sentences would not fit into larger contexts equally well. Gonda often deals with cases where this slate of affairs obtains, while it is referred to explicitly by Maronzeau at the beginning of his stndy on 63
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
word order in Latin: "-Oeux ordres
ossibles ne sont pas synonymes"
(Marouzeau 1922, 1). hile such differences may well be explicable within the context of a theory of performance, it must be noted that they could not be explained by any theory of competence which utilizes transformations to effe~tuate re-ordering, but adheres to the principle that transformations do not \,ffect meaning. For according to such a theory different arrangements are generated by applying transformational rules, and these resuIt in expressions synonymous with the underlying sentences. (Sometimes different orders may, of course, have to be derived from different deep structures.) Comparing English and Sanskrit we therefore find ourselves reverting to a not unfamiliar traditional doctrine, i.e., that Sanskrit expresses by means of infiexion what English expresses by means of word order as well as (e.g., in the case of Pronouns) inflexion (cf., e.g., Bloomfield 1933, 197; Hirt 1925, 66: " ... es ist bekannt wie flexionslose Sprachen durch eine im Wesentlichen feste Wortstellung einen Teil dessen ausdriicken, was sonst durch die Flexion erzielt wird"; etc.). This then may be said to be the significance of the statement that word order in Sanskrit is 'free'. The problem arises how to construct a mechanism which first derives expressions for certain grammatical relations and subsequently provides rules for mapping these expressions into either ordered sequences of words or strings, or, equivalently, unordered sets of words which are however determined by inflexion. It may be clear from our earlier results that such expressions for gramlnaticaI relations may be derived by means ofa system of kiiraka relationships as developed by Pii.J;ini or, equivalently, by meanS of Chomsky's definition of 'grammatical relation', iIIustrated with the help of trees which need not, however, be trimmed. It may be re-emphasized here that Chomsky was awa~e of the fact that the definition of 'grammatical relation' does not presuppose order: "the systems' of grammatical relations defined in the two cases [Le., set-systems and concatenation-systems] are identical" (Chomsky 1965, 125). This also provides the background for his remark that "the same grammatical function may be defined by several different rewriting rules of the base" (Chomsky 1965, 72). We could also express tllis by saying that wild trees may be regarded as equivalence classes of trimmed trees. The relation defining these equivalence classes is the relation between any two trimmed trees in which corresponding nodes dominate me same set. We shaU now give a sketch of how such a system could be set up, making use of wild trees and company-sensitive rules (above, page 15). Wild trees are trees such that the points dominated by a node constitute a se.t. Such trees symbolize the rules of the base, which are now constructed so as to introduce sets. These sets are stratified, i.e., the hierarchy of subsets containing elements dominated by a single node, is preserved. Otherwise it would be
64
impossible to ideriti conditions for the a impossible to derive. It should be empha, from the trimmed tn ty to generate order the application of tn cal relations; and tl semantic interpretati rules in Katz's sernaI 1966, 165, 167). Th, quired, e.g., in Engli rules, which are ana introduction of cor describerl by transfo rnational ·rules oper order as well (as in present context. As a fragment of; (cf. above, page 14): S V
N
N
C
(Note that 'Det', 'P, be required for a roo 3 Note that the braces denote the boundaries·
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
GRAMMAR
: pas synonymes::, e explicable within that they could not transformations to ransformations do , :rent arrangements \ Id these result in :ometimes different It deep structures.) elves reverting to a
resses by means of er as well as (e.g., 33, 197; Hirt 1925, te im Wesentlichen t dureh die Flexion ieance of the statearises how to COll!rtain grammatical se expressions into
tly, unordered sets maybe clear from II relations may be eveloped by Piil)ini mmatical relation', er, be trimmed. It f the fact that the ,rder: "the systems ., set-systems and 15). This also pro-
impossible to identify the constituents and phrases required to determine conditions for the application of transformational rules; it would also be impossible to derive grammatical relations and give a semantic interpretation. It should be emphasized that wild trees perform all the functions required from the trimmed trees familiar from generative grammar, except the capacity to generate order: they provide the constituents and phrases needed for the application of transformational rules; they enable us to define grammatical relations; and they may, accordingly, provide us with a basis for the semantic interpretation of the sentences they picture (note that the projection rules in Katz's semantic theory correspond with grammatical relations: Katz 1966, 165, 167). They do not, of course, yield the word order which is required, e.g .. in English. This will be effectuated by special order-introducing rules, which are analogous to the company-sensitive rules required for the introduction of concord or government. Since concord is in fact better described by transformational rules than by context-sensitive rules, transformational rules operating on sets may be required for the introduction of order as well (as in (52), below, page 77); but this is inessential in the present context. As a fragment of a simplified base we shall nOw adopt the following rules (of. above, page 14): S
--+ {NP,
VP}
(35)
VP
--+ {NP,
V, Num}
(36)
NP
--+ {N,
Num --+ {
mmatical function
, base" ..(Chomsky 1lrees may be re'.ion defining these ned trees in which be set up, making ge 15). Wild trees stitute a set. Such "strueted so as to subsets containing ,rwise it would be
Cas
--+
~
}
Num, Cas, (S)} ('1' for Sg, '2' for Dual, '3' for PI)
Nom Acc Instr Dat Abl Genit Loc J
(37)
(38)
(39)3
(Note that 'Det', 'Person', and many other markers and specifications may be required for a more adequate account). Note that the braces in (38) and (39) express alternatives, whereas in (35)-(37) they denote the boundaries of sets. In these cases however there is no danger of ambiguity.
3
65
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
These rules may be applied, for example, as symbolized in the following wild tree:
For English, proce' (39), we require com] stead of sets. For ex, and after (42): Alternatively, if w, comparative or univl
write instead of (41)(x)
This base can be made a sound point of departnre for either an English or a Sanskrit grammar. Government or concord will be introduced for Sanskrit by means of company-sensitive rules. When formulating snch rules we shaIl make use of a triple arrow (=7). Note that company-sensitive rules may be simpler than the corresponding context-sensitive rules, because not all elements of a set need be referred to, whereas all adjoining elements of a string must be referred to. That the Main Verb is governed by the Subject of S is expressed by the following triplet: {{N, i), {V, Num}}=7{{N, i},{V, i}} for
i = I, 2,3.
(40)
That the Subject of S is in the Nominative is expressed by: {{N, Cas}, VP}=7{{N, Nom}, VP}.
(41)
That the Direct Object of S is in the Accusative is expressed by: {{N, Cas}, V} =7 {{N, Ace}, V}.
(42)
More special cases could be similarly accounted for, e.g., the rule that the Verb is in the Singular if the Subject is a Neuter Noun even when it is in the Plural. For this purpose, (37) wonld have to be replaced by: NP .... {N, Num, Cas, Gend, (S)}
(37')
and we would also need: Masc } Gend .... Fern . { Neutr The required company-sensitive rule, which presupposes (40) and follows it, is the following: {{N, 3, Neutr}, {V, 3}}=7{{N, 3, Neutr}, {V, I}}.
66
In this manner order (42**), or (41)-(41*) the generalization th expressed by case te terminations (e.g., in
A very simple rule' and Adjectives, Parti, qualify. In the examr transformationally d· sentences (this is of c, from a base - still s fashion (e.g., by intt< the help of a transfc verbal expression. Tl {NP " {NP 2}}' To ex and
{{N i}, {{N 2 , "
{{N Masc}, " (SimilarlY for Fern al When these senten< this stratification will introduce Adjective, e.g., to distinguish 1
{{N" Ma, {{N" Ma, With the heIp of St
I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
IriRAMMAR I
For English, proceeding from rules of the same base consisting of (35)(39), we require company-sensitive rules which introduce ordered strings instead of sets. For example, after (41) we need:
'I in the following
)
,
{{N,Acc}, V}~ V"N"Acc.
(42*)
{{N, Cas}, VP}~N"Nom"VP {{N, Cas}, V} ~ V"N"Acc.
(x)
l,er an English or nced for Sanskrit :lch rules we shall live rules may be because not all ng elements of a :expressed by the (40)
(41)
(42)
the rule that the " when it is)n the y: (37')
10) and follows it,
I}}.
(41*)
Alternatively, if we are interested in English grammar only, and not in comparative or universal grammar, this may be abbreviated and we may write instead of (41)-(41*) and (42)-(42*):
'"Cas
1,2,3.
{{N, Nom}, VP}~N"Nom"VP and after (42):
(41**) (42**)
In this manner order may be introduced. At the same time, either (41 **) and (42**), or (41)-(41*) and (42)-(42*), as compared with (41) and (42) express the generalization that the same relations 'Subject-of' and 'Object-of' are expressed by case terminations in Sanskrit, and by order as well as case terminations (e.g., in the case of Pronouns) in English, respectively. A very simple rule which ought to be expressed is that modifiers in general, and Adjectives, Participles, etc., in particular, are governed by the Noun they qualify. In the examples from Sanskrit met with earlier, such sentences were transformationally derived from underlying sentences, which are nominal sentences (this is of course not always the case). Such sentences would result from a base - still simplified but set up in a slightly more sophisticated fashion (e.g., by introducing 'Pred-Phrase'; see Chomsky 1965,107) - with the help of a transformational rule which deletes a Copula or a similar verbal expression. This may be assumed to result in the expression: {NPl> {NP2}}. To express ,the required concord we now adopt the triplets: {{N"i}, {{N2,Num}}}~{{N"i}, {{N 2 ,i}}} for i=1,2,3
(43)
and Masc}, {{N 2, Gend}}}~{{N" Masc}, {{N2, Masc}}} (44) " (Similarly for Fern and Neuter.) When these sentences are embedded in Noun-Phrases with the help of (37), this stratification will have to be preserved under the transformations which introduce Adjective, etc. Elsewhere it may be necessary to introduce order, e.g., to distinguish between Adjectivization and Apposition, as follows: {{N
{{N" Masc}, {{N2, Masc}}}~N2"Masc"N,"Masc {{N" Masc}, {{N2, Masc}}}~N 1"Masc"N 2"Masc. With the help of such procedures we are in a position to state that Adjec67
Sl
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
tives are governed by the Noun they qualify, but also to distinguish subsequently between Adjectives which follow the Noun they qualify, and Adjectives which precede it (as is required in French and in many other languages). The general statement that Adjectives are governed by the Noun they qualify, however, has a much wider scope and is also valid, for example, for )"entences where a qualifier occurs which is not specifiable as either Adjective or Apposition (as, e.g., in Japanese). The distinction between verbal and nominal sentences is a very important one in languages such as Sanskrit. In India the status of the nominal sentence, which is well developed as well as common in scientific Sanskrit (see, e.g., Staal 1965c), gave rise to a controversy between the grammarians and the Naiyayikas (logicians). Whereas the grammarians insisted that the verbal sentence is basic and that nominal sentences are derived from them by deleting the Verb (i.e., that they have zero-occurrence of the Copula), the Naiyayikas considered this a very artificial device and regarded the nominal sentence as a primary category. This controversy may have resulted from the exclusive emphasis laid on Noun and Verb by logicians and grammarians,
respectively (Matilal 1966, 381 and 388 sq.). We have seen (above, page 52) that Delbrueck and Speyer, followed by other Western Sanskritists, introduced the rule that in the nominal sentence in Sanskrit the Predicate precedes the Subject. The discussion about the apparent counter-example embodied in the first rule of Pa\lini's grammar (above, page 27), points in the same direction. It need not at present be decided whether this constitutes a grammatical rule relating to conipetence, or whether it is an observation regarding performance. It may be noted, however, that in this case word order as a grammatical feature would not be surprising; for ambiguity might otherwise result, just as in Germau 'Die Mutter sieht die Tochter'. (The construction of copula sentences in English may be similarly ambiguous, cf. 'Miss Castlewood was the prettiest girl at the ball', Jespersen 1948, 153.) In the present context it is only necessary to show that if the Subject foilows the Predicate because of a grammatical rule, this may be expressed in terms of the system sketched above. That order may be introduced is clear from (41*) and (42*) or (41':'*) and (42**); it is equally obvions that we may introduce order at any stage, wherever it should be required. Such a procedure does not mean, however, that whenever order is required
somelVhere, it should be introduced right at the beginning. Yet it is this assnmption which is apparently made in current work on generative grammar. The assumption underlies the importance attached by Hall to such Russian sentences as 'Mat' videla doc" (1964, 407), and by Chomsky to such German sentences as 'Die Mutter sieht die Tochter' (1965, 126). These sentences
68
show that word order is order is never irrelevant in Russian and Germa:
The derivation of a s> irrelevant syntactically avoid ambiguity the Sa
sentences of the meta-la over automatically to t: 'it is not so that what a Pataiijali admits that; says: neha prayoganiy. clung to' (above, page Western Sanskritists, 'Die Mutter sieht die Tc rule that word order is "la grammaire. ne Call] most natural syntactic They can be easily ace a system that is otherwi implications of such an could be introduced. Adopting in the ba,
we require along with {{N, Nom}, {Colml; If the order Predicat< Sanskrit be introduced i.e., by: {{N" Nom}, {Co It would seem cone
similar to the investig fined to sentences imn nnexpectedly reveal th words is' grammaticall 4
The braces denote alterr
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
L GRAMMAR
distinguish subsethey qualify, and and in many other ,verned by the Noun a valid, for example, specifiable as eithe~, .0
is a very important he nominal sentence, c Sanskrit (see, e.g., rammarians and the sted that the verbal 'ived from them by of the Copula), the egarded the nominal lve resulted from the is and gra~marians, . i
Speyer, followed by :he nominal sentence liscussion about the )f PalJ-ini's grammar ,d not at present be ating to competence, ,e. It may be noted, feature would not be as in German 'Die sentences in English las the prettiest girl t it is only_necessary lse of a gr~mmatical ketched above. That Jr (41 **) and (42**); ny stage, wherever it ever order is required ·nning. Yet it is this generative grammar. Hall to such Russian lsky to such German 26). These sentences
show that word order is not always irrelevant; but they do not show that word order is never irrelevant, i.e., always relevant. Whatever the precise situation in Russian and German, we now know the position in Sanskrit fairly well. The derivation of a specific word order for NP"VP sentences would be irrelevant syntactically; it is, accordingly, counter-intuitive. In order to avoid ambiguity the Sanskrit grammarians adopted a convention for certain sentences of the meta-language (above, page 28). Though this does not carry over automatically to the object_language (cf. na yatha loke talM vyakara(re 'it is not so that what applies to ordinary speech applies to grammar itself'), Pataiijali admits that usage in tllis respect is more widespread, when he says; neha prayoganiyama tirabhyate 'restrictions on usage are not here clung to' (above, page 28). But this usage, which is also observed by some Western Sanskritists, remains exceptional. Similarly, sentences such as 'Die Mutter siehl die Tochler' are traditionally regarded as exceptions to the rule that word order is syntactically irrelevant (cf. above, page 60 note 1: "la grammaire ne commande l'ordre que dans des cas exceptionnels"). The most natural syntactic theory to account for this, will treat them as such. They can be easily accounted for by introducing order, when required, into a system that is otherwise in this respect unordered. Before discussing further implications of such an approach, let us see how precisely the req "ired order could be introduced. Adopting in the base (still simplified, cf. Chomsky 1965; 107) the rule: VP-> {{COPUla; NP})S {V, NP}
(45)4
We require along with (40)-(42) (above, page 66): {{N, Nom}, {Copula, {N, Cas}}}=H{N, Nom}, {Copula; {N, Nom}}} (46)
If the order Predicate-Subject were a grammatical feature, it could for Sanskrit be introduced by the same rule which introduces nominal sentences, i.e., by: {{N" Nom}, {Copula, {N2, Cas}}}~N2"Nom"N,"Nom.
(47)
It would seem conceivable that an analysis of word order in Sanskrit, similar to the investigations carried out by Western Sanskritists, but confined to sentences immediately derived from a base Phrase-marker, would unexpectedly reveal that also for verbal sentences the order at least of some words is grammatically fixed. This is extremely unlikely in view of all we 4
The braces denote alternatives and set boundaries;
cr. above, page 65 note
3.
69
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
have said before, and also because a fixed order such as this would possess no syntactic or semantic function (as it has in nominal sentences) and would, e.g., introduce a distinction between ramo govindam apasyat and apasyad govinda1[l riimaQ, which is never made. But even if this eventuality should come true, it would still be just another exception. Moreover, we would still re~uire a general rule which expresses that sentences, whether nominal or
If, however, a langu
(as the nominal sen replace (1) or (14) b:
vet-bal, consist of a Noun-Phrase and a Predicate-Phrase, i.e., an unordered
rule:
Accordingly we al unordered and can < may be introduced i type permits. This (
S-+ {NP, Pred-Phrase}. This could only be replaced by a rule introducing an ordered string, if the arrangement in all cases
happen~d
to be just the same. But this is even more
unlikely, since in nominal sentences the Subject was determined· as habitually following the Predicate, which is unlikely in most other cases. Apart from Sanskrit and quite in general, all such considerations tend to show that systems incorporating wild trees and company-sensitive rules are much more likely to adequately express linguistic universals than rules which presuppose or introduce order. This would be so; even if word order in Sanskrit were utterly fixed - if we except the case of its being fixed in the same way as word order is fixed in English or in any other language, a result which no amount of abstraction could bring about. Let us on the one hand assume, in accordance with this hypothesis, that the order which perhaps occurs most frequently in Sanskrit, i.e., ramo govindam apasyat (cf. above, page 12), were grammatically determined, i.e., by the rules: S -+ NP"VP VP -+ NP'-'V.
(14) (15)
at earlier, i.e., that order in this sense v Chomsky 1965, 12(
of words in different
I
I ! I
I i
universal grammar t
Of course, this ge: 1965; but only in a larly adopt a medic, naturally express th and observe subseql theorists rightly ad away that Ilian has " Some scholars hal ative grammar is no (e.g., Reichling 196.
For English, on the other hand, no legerdemain could convince us that we ought to dispense with: S -+ NP"VP (1) VP-+ V"NP. (2)
especially 44-47). TJ to deal with deep stn arises less easily wh,
Though (1) happens to coincide with (14), (2) does not coincide with (15), and hence the linguistic universal behind (2) and (15) can only be expressed by: VP-+{NP, V}.
which is then somel ordered string NP'" tion that people are
way indicated. For il brains contain sam
an ordered string, i
claiming that peopl
This may be subsequently specified in different ways for different language types, as for English by: {NP, V} ~ V"NP
where, but which is I right side. It is clear
but for Sanskrit, in accordance with this hypothesis, 'by:
are systems of lingJ is postulated to acc< for a variety of stn
{NP, V}~NP"V.
70
~
GRAMMAR
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
this would possess ntences) and would, pasyat and apasyad , eventuality should . :over, we would still : Nhether nominal orJ . :, ~, I.e., an unord ere d'. 3
, ,rdered string, if the lut this is even more ·mined as habitually cases.
nsiderations tend to pany-sensitive rules niversals than rules !ven if word order in
s being fixed in the other language, a t. Let us on the one 'order which perhaps . apasyat (cf. above, :les: (14) (15)
:;onvince us that we (1) (2)
coincide wittt (15),:: only be expressed
:1
If, however, a language existed where we have a gramrnatical rule: S-+ VP"NP
(1")
(as the nominal sentences in Sanskrit perhaps suggest), we must similarly replace (1) or (14) by: S-+ {NP, VP}. (1') Accordingly we arrive at a system of universal grarnrnar which is basically unordered and can only be described in terms of sets and wild trees. Order may be intmduced into this unordered base as early as a specific language type permits. This conclusion does not depend on the conclusion arrived at earlier, i.e., that word order in Sanskrit is 'free', For even if free word order in this sense would not obtain anywhere (as Delbrueck 1878, 76 and Chomsky 1965, 126 were inclined to think), the divergent arrangements of words in different types of language would require the base of a system of universal grammar to be unordered. Of course, this generalization can also be made on the basis of Chomsky 1965; but only in a redundant and rather unnatural way. One might similarly adopt a medical meta-language, constructed in such a way that it can naturally express that men hav.e a heart on the left side or on the right, and observe subsequently, that this implies that men have a heart. Medical theorists rightly adopt a language which enables us to express straight away that man has a heart. Some scholars have found it difficult to understand that a system ·of generative grammar is not intended to serve as a model of the speaker or hearer (e.g., Reichling 1961; 14, 16; Dhlenbeck 1963, 9-10; but see Kraak 1966, especially 44-47). This error, which is the outcome of the systematic refusal to deal with deep structure which characterizes taxonomic linguistics, perhaps arises less easily when the base of a generative grammar is unordered in the way indicated. For it is obvious that no one could want to claim that people's brains contain some unordered structure representing the set {NP, VP}, which is then somehow converted by neural or other mechanisms into the ordered string NP"VP (for some) or into VP"NP (for others). The assumption that people are aware of the underlying set whea or before they utter an ordered string, is even more fantastic. Such views would be similar to
I
different language
claiming that people's bodies contain a subtle heart, which is located nowhere, but which is converted into a gross manifestation on the left or on the right side. It is clear, on the other hand, that systems of generative grarnrnar are systems of linguistic description, a particular instance being thar (1') is postulated to account for both (1) and (1"), which in turn are to account for a variety of structures, including surface phenomena. Such postulates
71
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
have, again, nothing to do with a system being 'logical' or influenced by mathematical logic, as the same - and other - critics have cumplained. It may be noted that the adoption here suggested of unordered sets to replace ordered strings, is similar to that adopted in Chomsky 1965, where the ,ordered branches of the semantic trees of Katz and Postal (1964) have been. replaced by complex symbols denoting sets of syntactic features. - Of course, it is not suggested that this state of affairs (or that referred to in the previous paragraph) need in any way be regarded as an argument in support of the set-systems here advocated. It is far beyond the scope of the present monograph to extend this investigation effectively to universal grammar, which would presuppose the availability of generative grammars. for a variety of natural languages. We shall have some more general comments to make on universal grammar, but shall first consider some other examples in order to further illustrate and corroborate the above results. We have already seen that in both Latin and Greek the situation is very different from that in English, in that word order has on the whole no syntactical significance. For Latin, Marouzeau stated that grammar determines the order of words only in exceptional cases (see above, page 60 note 1). For Greek, !22Y!'!: suggested that "all patterns of order which are describable in syntactical terms are secondary phenomena" (ibid.). The Sanskrit system may in principle be described by (40)-(42) (above, page 66) and (45)-(47) (above, page 69). With regard to nominal sentences, the. situation in Arabic and Hebrew (and perhaps in Semitic in general) is the exact opposite. Here too Western scholars appear to have combined investigations into competence with studies of performance. Lacking the competence to unravel this performance we may be excused for merely quoting Fleisch (1956, 122; cf. BrocRelmann 1956, 118-121): " ... L'arabe classique ne demande rien ala place des mots pour caracteriser leur fonction dans la phrase; par les voyelles finales de la declinaison (et de la conjugaison), il avait en eifet Ie moyen de determiner, d'une manier~ inherente au vocable, sa fonction dans la phrase. Et cependant l'ordre des mots n'est pas libre. En dehors des combinaisons rigides - comme determine suivi du determinant dans I'annexion grammaticale, adjectif epithete apres Ie nom - i1 existe un ordre it respecter: verbe + sujet + complement direct + complement circonstanciel [i.e., in verbal sentences]; sujet + attribut + complement circonstanciel, en phrase nominate." Singling out for further illustration the arrangement of Subject and Predicate, we would have to express this statement, provided it describes grammatical reguladty, by (45), and in addition, instead of (40), by: {{N, i}, {V, Num}} $ V'Y'N"i for 72
i = 1, 2, 3
(48)
and instead of (47), t {{N J , Nom}, {
"
Comparing the no] and (49) for Sanskrit, of universal gramma '~', would be able tt were formulated in tl purely nominal senter
.1
{{NJ , Nom}, {C
II
I
I
I 'I
This must be a tra ment (cf. below, pag' With regard to A concern exceptions w First, the habitual Arabic when the ten parallel development, As a reactibn, author A.D.) employed a CO] This was syntacticall most severe criti~s oj jected to' this (Fiick 1 The second case c( sentences. In general, and must therefore 1 always in Indo-Euro: terms ofthe surface st of underlying base I derived (which woul< depends for example (cf. above, p
GRAMMAR
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
[' or influenced by complained. · unordered sets to )msky 1965, where Postal (1964) have letic features. - Of ), t referred to in the rgument in support
to extend this inlid presuppose the Irallanguages. We miversal grammar, .rther iIlustrate and · in both Latin and in that word order Marouzeau stated :optional cases (see lat "all patterns of ,dary phenomena" ribed by (40)-(42) regard to nominal haps in Semitic in .rS appear to have . ; of performance. Ie may be excused n 1956, 118-121): mr caracteriser leur iclinaison (et de la d' nne maniere inendant l'ordre des · comme determine ,ctif epithete apn\s complement direct sujet + attribut + It of Subject and )vided it describes of (40), by: ,2,3
(48)
and instead of (47), by: {{N!, Nom}, {Copula, {N2 , Cas}}} ""N!"'Nom"'N2 "'Nom.
, '. t
(49)
Comparing the nominal structures to the right of the symbol '",,' in (47) and (49) for Sanskrit and Arabic, respectively, it is obvious that no expression of universal grammar which could conceivably be inserted to the left of ':=;/, would be able to account. for these two sentence structures, unless it were formulated in terms of sets. Moreover, the general production of a purely nominal sentence is given again in terms of sets, i.e., by: {{N!, Nom}, {Copula, {N2 , Cas}}} ""{{N,, Nom}, {N2 , Nom}}. (50) Tills must be a transformational rule, since there is deletion of an element (cf. below, page 77). With regard to Arabic two further observations may be made; both concern exceptions which help to establish the general rules. First, the habitual word order became syntactically significant in middle Arabic when the terminations of classical Arabic had been lost (as in the parallel developments in Indo-European and, perhaps, in Archaic Chinese). As a reaction, authors of the middle Arabic period, e.g., Mutanabbl (916-65 A.D.) employed a completely free word order when writing classical Arabic. This was syntactically correct, though in some respects unusual. Even the most severe critics of Mutanabbl and of his language, however, neverobjected to this (Fiick 1955, 148-50). The second case concerns concord between Verb and Subject in NP""VP seiltences. In general, concord depends exclusively on grammaticai relations' and must therefore be expressed by rules like (40) (above, page 66). As always in Indo-European, it depends on grammatical relations defined in terms of the surface structure ('he is easy to please'), not on the deep structure of underlying base Phrase-markers, from which it is transformationally derived (which would account for 'hlln is easy to please'). Thus concord depends for example on the grammatical subject, not on the logical subject (cf. above, page 66; Chomsky 1965, 221-2 note 35). But in Arabic not the surface structure, but the arrangement of words in the finally derived string may in exceptional cases influence concord, esp,cially when in this string the Predicate precedes the Snbject. In that case, says keckendorf (1898, 69) "ist vom Subjekt vorerst nur eine vage Vorstellung vorhanden" (note that this is formulated with reference not to competence, but to .performance). This explains, e.g., cases where a verb in the plural precedes a subject in the inner plural (which otherwise determines the singular): jal,ulUna 'abna'u al-ba'iri 'spoke [Plural] the sons [Inner Plural] of the camel'; or cases where a verb
73
-- -- ......
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
in the singular precedes a subject in the dual: tandza'ani ar-raguliini 'fought [Singular1 with me the two men [Dual],. In English the selection of Pronouns generally depends in a similar manner on the arrangement of words in the finally derived string." Lastly, some mOre examples, partly from English, will be considered. It seems fairly cert~in that (3) or (3'), which have to account for all the recursive properties oflanguage (except conjunction and the like, but cf. Rosenbaum 1967), will be utilized for the introduction of Adjectives, Appositions; Participles, other sorts of Nominalizations, and all kinds of phrases. A certain number of these will require a rearrangement of words. For example, if (3) is adopted for Adjectivization by means of embedding, either the second occurrence of the resulting two identical Nouns will have to be erased, or the order of N and S must be reversed; for restrictive clauses, however, the order may be
preserved. If (3') on the other hand is adopted for introducing restrictive clauses, the order afN and S must be revc;~sed; it may be preserved, however,
in the case of Adjectivization. Many similar examples could be given for English, whereas in the case
Moreover, only this I (not to mention othel by embedding other s It may well be as1 based upon sets. It S( terms of strings. This J of questions. But jus1 as permutation trans tirmative sentences
<
abstract structures (ju such structures, rathe
1966,158), it seems p of sets rather than st In the case of del likely that this is in rna in Sanskrit the option (above, page 40):
of many subordinate clauses it is not even clear which order we want to
lena ku.
describe, e.g., 'though he loved smoking, he gave it up' as against: 'he gave up smoking, though he loved it'. 5 Of course, even in cases where there is no
should be defined in Sl
need to change the order, transformational rules will still be wanted for generating the required structures. It is quite conceivable that in the ~onrse of a rnoro detailed description of such structures, arguments for the adoption of either (3) or (3') will come forward. But even if these arguments wonld predominantly point into one direction (which seems unlikely), it is obvious that only an unordered rule wo~ld allow a universal procedure to be followed. For, while (3) or (3') require the transformational rules to preserve order in some cases but to alter it in others, transformationa; rules for all cases determine the required order, provided they are applied to the result of the application of an unordered rule such as: NP -> {(Det), N, (S)}.
cal permutations, i.e.
:; From an account given by Mr.R.P.G. de Rijk of recent work on transformations carried out at M.LT., I learned that it is always possible to replace in the finally derived string the second occurrence of two NP's with the same reference by a Pronoun (e.g., 'John noticed that he was becoming deaf'). It is sometimes possible in English (but never, it seems, in Turkish or in one of the languages of Ghana) to replace the first occurrence of such an NP by a Pronoun, provided a certain condition is fulfilled (e.g., 'That he was becoming deaf annoyed John'). This condition depends on grammatical relations and may therefore be formulated in terms of sets. Thus, there are two kinds of Pronoun which are quite different in origin (note that also in English the first kind, but not the second, may be replaced by 'the aforementioned').
74
This can only be dor terms of sets .. Passivization itself, str;ngs either, if it is 1 way. In Sanskrit, rlim
its five permutations, But each of the perm seen by Rama', is ec;
former group of six. formulated in terms ( One rule will again a terms of sets. In general this wo applicability of transf, sets. An example fror exposition and simpli described by means of preferable, however, 1 is done as in Katz at
Diagram 2.4:
GRAMMAR
7r-raguliini 'fought n a similar manner
ing.5 Lastly, some d. It seems fairly ecursive properties ) 'Dbaum 1967), will " Participles, other oertain number of .e, if (3) is adopted :ond occurrence of or the order of N the order may be oducing restrictive ·reserved, however, 'hereas in the case order we want to s against: 'he gave :8 where there is no ;till be wanted for etailed description ,er (3) or (3') will ninantly point into only an unordered '"~ For, while (3) or i 1 some cases but to I '. rmine the required ,lication of an un-
k on transformations !
in the finally derived
e by a Pronoun (e.g., 1 English (but never, it :irst occurrence of such fhat he was becoming )ns and may therefore ,noun which are quite )t the second, may be
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Moreover, only this rule would express the generalization that for English (not to mention other languages) recursiveness is introduced into sentences by embedding other sentences into Noun-Phrases. It may well be asked how transformations work in a syntactic theory based upon sets. It seems obvious that permutations are only definable in terms of strings. This may seem relevant in connection, e.g., with the analysis of questions. But just as it may seem preferable to describe questions not as permutation transformations from affirmative sentences, but both affirmative sentences and questions as transformations from underlying abstract structures (just as positive and negative sentences are derived from such structures, rather than negative sentences from positive ones: Kraak 1966, 158), it seems preferable to describe such.abstract structures in terms of sets rather than strings, and apply transformational rules to these sets. In the case of deletion and addition transformations it is even more likely that this is in many cases the most promising solution. It is obvious that in Sanskrit the optional deletion of lena 'by him' from such sentences as (24) (above, page 40):
lena kumbhd/:z kriyante 'pots are made by him', should be defined in such a way that it also applies to the other five grammatical permutations, i.e., kumbluis lena kriyanle, (ena kriyante .kumbhiib, etc. This can only be done by means of one rule, if the description is given in terms of sets. Passivization itself, in Sanskrit or Latin, cannot be described in tenns of strings either, if it is to be described in a natural and not counter-intuitive way. In Sanskrit, ramo govindam apasyal 'Rama saw Govinda', and each of its five permutations, is grammatical, and no particular one is optimal. But each of the permutations of: adrsyala rtimeva govinda/:l 'Govinda was seen by Rama', is equally grammatical and is the Passive of each of the former gronp of six. To express this in terms of Passive transformations formulated in terms of strings would require quite a large number of rules. One rule will again account for this, provided Passivization is described in terms of sets. In general this would require that the Analyzability condition for the applicability of transformational rules be in such cases expressed in terms of sets. An example from the literature may make this clear. For the sake of exposition and simplicity, agreement has in this monograph been generally described by means of context-sensitive or company-sensitive rules. It may be preferable, however, to describe it with the help of transformations. If this is done as in Katz and Postal (1964, 9-11), the situation depicted in their Diagram 2.4: 75
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
Sentence
mark was made cone
redundant informatic Noun Phrase
Verb Phrase
A
I
Noun
Verb
~
A Gender
transformational rulE
on the applicability ( transformational ruh
Adverb
applicability of tram conditions formulate context-sensitive by have to mark the ele when stratification 01 The company-sem page 60) can in fact
Noun stem
Number
1
2
4
3
company-sensitive ru It is no doubt po:
index, i.e. :
but not that depicted in their Diagram 2.5:
{{ Sentence
On the other hand Noun
IPhrase
~un
,A Gender
Verb Phrase
A
Adverb
{{N, }; Verb
Number
3
4
falls under the domain of the structure of the transformation: Gender + Number, Noun Stem, Verb, X=l, 2,1 12 3 4
+ 3, 4.
This is clearly stated on page 10 (lines 3-4). But is it desirable? It seems obvious, on the contrary, that this structure index carries redundant information in the same way as some context-sensitive rules: for we want to deal with the situation depicted in Diagram 2.5 as well, since the position of the Adverb and the order of words in general has nothing to do with the agreement of the verb with the subject (cf. above, page 9, where a similar re-
76
1
By such simple chan but attention shouIe individual languages We have now seel appropriate to fom terms of strings; th
Noun Stem
2'
may be written as tr:
matical relations, a~ order, and· so is of e
for the semantic inte theory coincides wit! The arrangement 0 significant (as it is, , grammatical structu The resulting syst, of Chomsky 1965. T rules to start with. I Choniskian lines, bu same language, or f
~RAMMAR
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
---------
Verb Phrase
A
'erb
Adverb
company-sensitive rules introduced earlier. It is no doubt possible to replace the Analyzability conditions for the
applicability of transformations formulated in terms of strings by similar conditions formulated in terms of sets, analogous to the replacement of context-sensitive by company-sensitive rules. In order to do this we may have to mark the elements of sets in a similar way as was earlier employed when stratification of sets was indicated by braces. . The company-sensitive rule for verbal agreement given above ((40) on page 60) can in fact be written as a transformational rule with a structure
4
3
mark was made concerning the description of grammatical relations). The redundant information precisely prevents the additional application of the transformational rule which is required, and thus imposes too strict limits on the applicability of a transformational rule. We need instead a kind of transformational rules defined on Analyzability conditions similar to the
index, i.e. :
{{N, i}, {V, Num}}=o-{{1, 2}, {3, I}}. 1 2 3 4
~ Verb Phrase
A
,dverb
3
Verb
4
,ion:
l +3, 4.
esirable? It seems redundant inforr .we want to deal 'Ie position of the 10 with the agree-
lere a similar re-
(51)
On the other hand such order-introducing rules as (47) (above, page 69) may be written as transformational rules of the form: {{N, Nom}, {Copula, {N, Cas}}} =4"2"1"2. 1 2 3 4 5
(52)
By such simple changes the whole Of transformational theory is preserved; but attention should be paid to the precise point where in grammars for individaallanguages, rules which generato strings are introduced. We have now seen that even ·in English there are cases where it is more appropriate to formulate transformational rules in terms of sets than in terms of strings; the change, moreover, is largely terminological. Grammatical relations, as we have seen repeatedly, are always inde;>endent of order, and so is of course the system of constituents itself. The same holds for the semantic interpretation, since each of the projection rules of semantic
theory coincides with a particular grammatical relation (see above, page 65). The arrangement of words in a sentence is therefore only semantically significant (as it is, e.g., in English) in as far as this arrangement expresses grammatical structure (as it does in English). The resulting system is relatively simple but it is not as simple as the system of Chomsky 1965. The reason is that we were forced to introduce unordered rules to start with. From here one may proceed by introducing order along Chomskian lines, but in different directions for different structures within the same language, or for different types of language. Any system of universal 77
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
grammar appears to require such an unordered base, and so do systems of generative grammar for languages with 'free word order'. If we wish to describe in more precise terms in what way such a system of universal grammar is more complicated than the system of Chomsky 1965, we shall see that its greater complexity is primarily due to the fact that Chd,msky's system constitutes in fact a special case, appropriate for languages with a fixed word order. This explains at the same time that certain rules of Chomsky's system appear to carry redundant information from the point of view of universal grammar. Since even in English adverbials move rather freely, it is not certain that there are languages with absolutely fixed word order. Let us in general distinguish theoretically between (1) A-languages, with free word order; (2) J3-languages, with partial!YJree = p;~tiallyfued word order; and (3) C-Iangll/lges, with fixed word order. In theoretical terms it may be postulated that universal grammar contains a substructure of the base of each grammar of an A-, B- or C-language. It might in fact contain the following rules: S -> {NP, VP} VP ->{V, NP} NP -> {N, (S)}
(a) (b) (c)
and furthermore, apart from other kinds of universals, rules which introduce other constituents such as Prep-Phrase, Sentence Adverbial, Prep-Phrase . Adverbiai, and perhaps Det.· Such. a base embodies the universal deep structure and is mapped into a variety of particular surface structures. But this mapping is done by different rules for different languages or language types. These added rules ·(which are largely transformational) constitute for each language a particular 'supplement', which is not universal and does not contribute to the semantic interpretation. Of course, these supplements may again overlap or contain other supplements, and thereby circumscribe certain language types. For A-languages, their rules derive further sets; for C-languages, they immediately generate strings; for B-languages, a combination of both. Speaking theoretically, (a)-(c) belongs to every language. But if (a)-(c), thus formulated in terms of sets, is regarded as a fixed subpart of each particular grammar, such a grammar, especially if it describes a C-language, may turn out to be more complicated than it need be by itself. There is, however, no objection to replacing the sets of (a)-(e) immediately by the required strings, if one is engaged in the practical job of writing a grammar for a C-Ianguage, provided one has no general theoretical or comparative purpose as well. That would enable us to arrive at precisely the system of Chomsky 1965. 78
This might be ex] particular grammar
base immediately b~ grammar along with grammars, is the sir
grammar made up supplement, need a· a methodological p' It seems most Iik some may be almos While English may an A-language. Th,
. I
particular grammm pal).inian: it is a sy: gous to the kiiraka of transformations: J
order on the basis as certain Pronour
strings. 6 The system here and characterized a: of as a device cons: one a phOliological
•
ordered rules of th dummy symbols, th trimmed trees. Am· rule, in which the right, so that the n formational subcor. structure generated symbols are signals nent have to be apr 6 In order to avoid at vocated does not intenl 'wild trees'; this attem; 54) that words may IT constituents, or (whid itself is one of the ar!: described in terms of 1 that word order does n structure. But once th trees, and trimmed tre 7 The remaining parag
GRAMMAR
I
SO
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
do systems of
vay such a system stem of Chomsky lue to the fact that riate for lauguages ) tat certain rules of m from the point rbials move rather ,Iutely fixed word t (1) 6o:Janguages, , = partially fixed ler. In theoretical ins a substructure ,. It might iu fact
I
)
J
(a) (b) (c) " which introduce :bial, Prep-Phrase 1e universal deep .ce structures .. But uages or language nal) constitute for ersal and does not hese supplements :reby circumscribe 'e further sets; for ," uages, a combina- .\; 'ge. But if (a)-(c), I subpart of each ibes a C-Ianguage, ~y itseif. There is, nmediately by the ting a grammar for I or comparative ,ely the system of
•
t.
This might be expressed in different terms as follows. The adaptation of particular grammars of C-Ianguages by replacing the sets of the universal base immediately by strings, signifies that the entire edifice of one universal grammar along with alI the particular supplements which make up particular grammars, is the simplest possible. But this does not imply that a particular grammar made up of the universal grammar along with one particular supplement, need also be the simplest possible. This is not surprising from a methodological point of view. It seems most likely that most languages are in fact B-Ianguages, though some may be almost similar to A-, and others almost similar to C-Ianguages. While English may be almost a C-Ianguage, Sanskrit appears to be almost an A-language. The entire edifice of univerGal grammar as embedded in a particular grammar for Sanskrit acquires a structure which is basically Pal)inian: it is a system which first introduces grammatical relations analogous to the kiiraka relations (at the same time providing for the possibility of transformations and for semantic interpretation); subsequently introduces order on the basis of these relations; and finally introduces such elements as certain Pronouns, as well as sandhi rules, which operate on ordered strings. 6 The system here envisaged may also be contrasted with earlier systems and characterized as follows. 7 So far, generative grammar has been conceived of as a device consisting of a syntactic component with two interpretations, one a phonological component and the other a semantic component. The ordered rules of the base introduce strings of jormatives, constituents and dummy symbols, thus generating generalized Phrase:·markers represented by trimmed trees. A!1lorrg the rules of the base there is at least one recursive rule, in which the initial sentence symbol S is allowed to reappear on the right, so that the rules may reapply to this new occurrence of S. The transformational subcomponent of the syntactic component maps the deep structure generated by the base into surface stn.:ctures. Whilst most dummy symbols are signals indicating that rules of the transformatiunal subcomponent have to be applied (i.e., transformational markers), the symbol S, which 6 In order to avoid all misunderstanding it may be emphasized that the system here ad~ vocated does not intend to explain free word order by replacing 'trimmed' trees by stratified 'wild trees'; this attempt would fail, e.g., for Sanskrit, for we have seen (above, pages 34, 54) that words may move beyond the boundaries of substrings dominated by particular constituents, or (which means the same) beyond the subsets of stratified sets. This failure itself is one of the arguments which favours the assumption that word order cannot be described in terms of trees, whether trimmed or wild. Therefore, the conclusion is drawn that word order does not belong to the deep structure, but must be relegated to the surface structure. But once this conclusion is reached, there is no more need to cling to trimmed· trees, and trimmed trees may be everywhere replaced by wild trees without any'loss. 7 The remaining paragraphs owe their existence to a stimulating discussion with Dr. Kraak.
79
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
may be considered both a dummy and a constituent symbol, signals that a Phrase-marker must be embedded. The semantic interpretation, lastly, depends on the system of constituents and grammatical relations defined by the base and is derived by inserting the lexical items of the lexicon in sp~cified positions in the base and applying projection rules which correspond to trammatical relations. In the theory here envisaged the base of the syntactic component consists of a kernel of ordered rules (including at least one recursive rule) introducing sets of formatives, constituents and dummy symbols (transformational markers). This kernel is the same for all natural languages and hence a linguistic universal which is presupposed by particular grammars. Since the kernel generates stratified sets, which may be represented by wild trees, it immediately provides the system of constituents and grammatical relations required for the semantic interpretation. The kernel of the syntactic component, therefore, coincides with the non-lexical subpart of the semantic component, i.e., with a system of projection rules. Whereas the rules of the base in the system of Chomsky 1965 were "to a large extent nniversal" (ibid., 141), the rules of the kernel are precisely the universal rules which determine the semantic interpretation. In addition to the kernel, the syntactic component contains other rules which vary from language to language or from language type to language type. For some languages these rules derive further sets from the sets generated by the kernel; for other languages they immediately generate ordered strings .. It is clear that in neither case these additional rules contribute to the semantic interpretation. It is prObable that these rules are transformational rules which operate on . sets. Ultimately ordered strings will be introduced everywhere, and surface structures will be derived from these with the help of other transforniational rules. The picture which emerges is not that of a syntactic component with a semantic interpretation (deep structure) and a phonological interpretation (surface structure), but that of a kernel consisting of stratified sets which embodies the universal deep structure and is mapped into particular surface structures. Essentially such a theory is much more simple and perspicuous than earlier systems, since it permits the generation (or 'interpretation') of
S(
As an illustration ( some semantic rela
framework of ChOi 1967a, if appropriat languages with simi introduced there d therefore inherently happens to be gram provided informati, are themselves inde
devices introduced sensitive rules (see
~
plished by replacing be carried out in a
replaceme.nf is a st universal grammar. In order to clearl solutIOn proposed j appJicabk to similar which allow the tll< some other langual belongs to universal The problem und, obtaining between
~
structures in one way only, viz., from the unordered deep structure expressed
by the kernel to ordered surface structures. This is intuitively more satisfactory and constitutes a natural development from the basic ideas that prompted earlier formulations of theories in generative grammar.
(in at least one sens
The following solu introduced into th,
80
GRAMMAR
'mbol, signals that retation, lastly, del relations defined s of the lexicon in , which correspond omponent consists 'e rule) introducing (transformational tages and hence a 'ammars. Since the by wild trees,itimmmatical relations . the syntactic comft of the semantic 'as the rules of the extent universal" versal rules which 1e kerneI, the syn, language to lante languages these kernel; for other [t is clear thet in Itic· interpretation. which operate on .vhere, and surface l" transformational c component with cical interpretation ratified sets which particular surface
perspicuous than nterpretation') of tructure expressed itively more satis, basic ideas that rammar.
APPENDIX
SOME SEMANTIC RELATIONS
As an illustration of a specific application of the theory outlined above, some semantic relations recently treated (Staal 1967a), partly within the framework of Chomsky'S Aspects, will be reconsidered. My solution of . 1967a, if appropriate at all, will be seen to be so only for English or other languages with similar, at any rate fixed, word order, The special devices introduced there depend on word order and surface structure, and are therefore inherently superficial. The particular arrangement of words which happens to be grammatical in English was utilized only to the extent that it provided information about the underlying grammatical relations, which are themselves independent of word order, In other words, these special devices introduced redundant information in the same way as contextsensitive rules (see above, page 11), The required generalization is accomplished by replacing strings by sets and trimmed trees by wild trees; this can be carried out in a relatively simple manner, It may be assumed that this replacement is a step towards the generalization from English syntax to universal grammar. In order to clearly show the point at issue I shall first briefly sketch the solution proposed in 1967a; subsequently show that this solution is not applicable to similar cases from Sanskrit; and finally introduce modifications which aIIow the theory to apply to both English and Sanskrit (as well as some other languages), It may be assumed that the resulting description belongs to universal grammar, The problem under discussion is how to analyse the relation of paraphrase obtaining between such sentence pairs as: John precedes Mary Mary follows John
(53) (54)
(in at least one sense of the verbs), or: Peter buys books from John John sells books to Peter.
(55)
(56)
The following solution was proposed, Special indicatory symbols were introduced into the complex symbols which occur in lexical items. For 81
APPI
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
where the occurrenc number, tense, etc. 1: We shall for the s of the specific repre present tense indica!: the item: (upaJ
example, the lexical item for precede was written in the lexicon as: (precede, [+ V, + __NP ... ]).1
(57)
In general, if a verb is given in the lexicon in the form: )
(V,
[+ V, +_ ... "(Prep;l"NP'
... ]),
(58)
this was defined so as to imply that the following sentences are paraphrases: NP"Aux"V" ... "(Prep;j"NP' NP'"Aux''V''' ... "(PrePkl"NP.
(59) (60)
Applying definition sentences may be ac{
The actual result of this device is that a noun-phrase which, in a terminal string, immediately precedes the verb, and another noun-phrase which follows the verb but is together with the verb dominated by VP, change places. But what ought to be effectuated is that the subject should change position with another specified noun-phrase (e.g., the noun-phrase of the object), which is dominated by VP, but which need not follow the verb. This is the requirement as formulated in terms of grammatical relations and not in terms of accidental surface structures. In English, the subject happens to precede the verb immediately and the other noun-phrase happens to follow the verb. But in general this is not so (ill some caseS there are altematives also in English, as we shall see.) This becomes obvious as soon as we consider an analogous example from Sanskrit (actually almost any other language would provide similar indications). In Sanskrit we have to account for the relation of paraphrase· which obtains between the following sentences (a specific word order, different from English, has been "elected): indra/:! somam upajivati 'Indra lives on Soma' soma indrOlfl dhtirayati 'Soma supports Indra'.
However, each of tt each of the six pem enough to interpret unless (63) is also m cannot in general be NP (though domim restriction: since this re~triction English and dues no undoubtedly approp therefore, introduce that the verb is ace (which may precede
(61) (62)
The underIyine Phrase-markers may be represented by the trees: In general, the conte) like (66), introduced or universal gramrr subcategorisation ru important difference is easily effected by I The lexical item fc
5
~, /~
NP
VP
soma NP
V
soma
upajivati
NP
indro
V
(upajivati, [ +
dhfiroyoti
(xi)
In general, if a verb
The braces 'r,'}' adopted in 1967a are rep1aced by ang1es '<',')', since braces are used here to refer to sets.
1
(V, [c
82
,
.
APPENDIX: SOME SEMANTIC RELATIONS
GRAMMAR
where the occurrences of V are simplified in that indications of person, number, tense, etc. have been omitted. We shall for the sake of simplicity denote verbs in the lexicon by means of the specific representative quoted here, i.e., by the third person of the
exicon as: (57)
1
(58)
I) ... J),
,
present tense indicative. Let us assume, accordingly, that the lexicon contains
the item:
es are paraphrases: ~
(59) (60)
(upajivati, [+ V, + __NP
(63)
Applying definition (58), the relation of paraphrase between the following sentences may be accounted for:
'hich, in a terminal
indra upajivati somam somo dhdrayatindram.
(64) (65)
lOun-phrase which :cd by VP, change ,ject should change lOun-phrase of the )lIow the verb. This Ll relations and not subject happens to , happens to follow
However, each of the six permutations of (61) or (64) is a paraphrase of each of the six permutations of (62) or (65). To account for this it is not enough to interpret the trees of (xi) as wild and not as trimmed trees, unless (63) is also modified. Moreover, if upajivati is a transitive verb, this cannot in general be expressed by specifying that the verb is followed by a NP (though dominated along with this NP by VP), i.e., by a context-
ere are alternatives
restriction:
+_NP, malogous exampJe lId provide similar .tion of paraphrase ecific word order,
(66)
since this restriction is confined to surface structures similar to those of English and (ioes J.1ot apply to a number of other language, for which it is undoubtedly appropriate to say that they possess transitive verbs. We must, therefore, introduce a more general 'company-restriction', which specifies
(61) (62)
ama' ndra'.
that the verb is accompanied by an object or combined with an object (which may precede or follow it). Precisely tbis results from the restriction:
+ {_,NP}.
he trees:
(67)
In general, the context-sensitive subcategorlsation rules involving expressions
~
VP
/~
NP
indra
V
dharoyati
(xi) " since braces are used
like (66), introduced by Chomsky (1965, 90 sq.), are not valid for Sanskrit or universal grammar. They should be replaced by company-sensitive subcategorisation rules involving expressions like (67). While this is an important difference from the conceptual point of view, the formal change is easily effected by replacing strings by sets and ' N b!l ' , '. The lexical item for upajivati may now be written as follows: (upajivati, [+ V, + {_, {NP
(68)
In general, if a verb is given in the lexicon in the form:
(V, [+ V, + { _ , NP'
(69) 83
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
APPEl'
this is defined so as to imply that the following structures underlie sentences that are paraphrases: (70) {NP, {V, NP'}} {NP', {V', NP }}. (71) App,lying this to (68), and further utilizing (37) (simplified), (41) and (42) (abo~e, page 66) we can derive the following structures, which underlie sentences that are paraphrases:
{{N, Nom}, {upajivati, {N', Acc}}} {{N', Nom}, {dhiirayati, {N, Acc}}}
(73)
{indrab, {upajivati, somam}} {soma!" {dhti;'ayati, indram}}
(74) (75)
(72)
English structures are but also from the poir tures are now derivec
structure, but underly assumed that indepen< found also in English. We must also accOl (above, page 81), whic Phrase-markers may 1
for example:
and hence (61)-(62), (64)-(65), etc. The device introduced by the definition of (69) not only accounts for the required paraphrases in Sanskrit, but in English as well. The lexicon will
/
N~
N
now be required to contain the item:
(precede, [+ V, + {_, NP(follow, + {_, NP}>)]).
(76)
Peter
This implies that the following structures underlie sentences .that are paraphrases: {NP, {precede, NP'}} (77) (78) {NP', {follolV, NP }}. If we now utilize (37) (simplified), (41**) and (42**) (above, page 67) we can account for the paraphrase relation between .the following structures: N "Nom"precede" N'" Acc N' "Nom"follow" N" Acc
and:
(79) (80) ~~ NP
(the verbal terminations may be added and specified with the help of (40) above, page 66 - and other rules, which have not been taken into account in
order to simplify the present discussion). This accounts for 'he precedes her' "and 'she follows him' being paraphrases, and also for the paraphrase relation between (53) and (54). This treatment of paraphrase relations is more complicated than that proposed in 1967a. But this earlier simplicity was achieved at the cost of excluding general featu·res of language which are manifested in English in a special way. It is, of course, fully legitimate to exploit the idiosyncratic properties of English for an English grammar not written for comparative purposes or for the sake of exhibiting general features of language. Still, the advantage of the present treatment (and also of, e.g., (67) over (66» appears not merely from the point of view of universal grammar (as these particular 84
~
/
N
John
"Z"Transitive verbs are sc the subject and main verl keeper noticing it'; 'Dat< by Zandvoort 1961, 282J
APPENDIX: SOME SEMANTIC RELATIONS
,GRAMMAR
; underlie sentences (70) (71)
lied), (41) and (42) 'es, which underlie" (72) (73)
English structures are now derived from structures in universal grammar), but also from the point of view of English grammar, as these English strnctures are now derived from what they really depend on, i.e., not surface structure, but underlying grammatical relations. In view of this it may be assumed that independent syntactic motivations for such descriptions can be found also in English. 2 We must also account for the paraphrase relation between (55) and (56) (above, page 81), which involves more complicated devices. The underlying Phrase-markers may be taken to be, respectively:
s (74) (75)
VP
NP
/
ly accounts for the II. The lexicon will NP}»)J) ,
(76)
N
v
NP
Peter
buys
books
A
Prep
flees that are
para~
from
(77) (7S)
NP
I !
N
John
.bove, page 67) we tHowing structures:
(xii) and:
(79) (SO)
Ii the help of (40) .ken into account in or 'he precedes her' 'or the paraphrase
lplicated than that eved at the cost of 'ested in English in lit the idiosyncratic en for comparative ·language. Still, the ) oyer (66)) appears (as these particular
books
to
Peter
(xiii) 2 Transitive verbs are sometimes preceded by their object, with or without inversion of the subject and main verb of the sentence: 'Many a rabbit had he snared without the game-keeper noticing it'; 'Dates I could never remember'; 'Invalids we have no use for' (quoted by Zandvoort 1961, 282).
85
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
APPI
The solution proposed earlier and expressed by means of (58) can also be applied here, provided the lexicon contains:
(buy, [+ V, + __NP"ji'om"NP (sell"to>]).
~
(81)
Aci;ording to the definition this·implies that (55) and (56) are paraphrases. Here again, the noun-phrase wruch immediately precedes the verb and the noun-phrase which immediately follows from, change places. But what ought to be described is that the subject changes places with the noun-phrase immediately dominated by Prep-Phrase, itself immediately dominated by Verb-Phrase. This is the requirement as formulated in terms of grammatical
NP
/
N
devadattal)
relations and not in terms of accidental surface structure.
We' can now provide the required subcategorization for the verb buy. In the system of Aspects, this sub categorization would be given in terms of and:
the context-restriction:
+ __NP"from"NP.
(82)
...-------
But this does not apply in a number of other languages where the same graramatical relation underlies the same phenomenon. We need instead the company-restriction:
+ {_, NP, {Prep, NPl}.
(83)
The English lexicon will accordingly be required to contain the following lexical item:
(buy, [+ V, + {_, NP, {Forn, NP(sell,
/
/
NP
N ramal) .
+ {_, NP, {to, NP)}>}}]) (84)
which will in a more natural and justifiable manner account for the paraphrase relation between (55) and (56). In Sanskrit we have to explain the relation of paraphrase between the following sentenc"s (a specific word order, different from English, has again been selected):
devadatto ramaya rukmal]1 dadati 'Devadatta gives a golden ornament to Rama'
(85)
ramo devadattad rukmam adatte 'Rama receives a golden ornament from Devadatta'.
(86)
The underlying Phrase-markers may be represented by the following wild trees, respectively: 86
where the occurrence
etc. In these trees th' of P3.IJ.ini's tenninoI,
are said to obtain bl verb-phrase. The UTI wruch is manifested underlying karaka n the Accusative or 2n, apadana, wruch is. IT terminology, the kart dominated by K,. TJ: by Prep-Phrase in th
GRAMMAR
APPENDIX: SOME SEMANTIC RELATIONS
of (58) can also be
, -> D·
S
(81)
5) are paraphrases. ) :s the verb and the ' ces. But what ought :h the noun-phrase tely dominated by ms of grammatical
VP
NP
/
/~
N
devadattab
Oat
NP
V
/~
dadiiti
Acc
NP
I
I
N
N
for the verb buy. e given in terms of
K,
(xiv)
rukmam
riimayo
and:
s
(82)
,s where the same Te need instead the (83) ,tain the following
,{to, NPj} >}}D (84) .for the paraphrase hrase between the . rom English, has
(85)
a'.
(86)
the following wild
~~
JP
___~~
N
Ks
ramal)
/~
T
Abl
N
Kl
/~
T
V iidatte
Ace'
N devodottllt
rukm!Jm
(xv)
where the occurrence of V is again simplified by omitting person, number, etc. In these trees the symbols K; have been introduced to remind ourselves of PaQini's terminology, where karaka relations (cf. above, pages 36-45) are said to obtain between the verb and the different noun-phrases of the verb-phrase. The underlying karaka relation for riimaya is saIflpradiina, which is manifested by the Dative or 4th case (in pa1).ini's order); the underlying karaka relation for rukmam is karman, which is manifested by the Accusative or 2nd case; the underlying karaka relation for devadattat is apadiina, which is manifested by the Ablative or 5th case. In the above terminology, the kiiraka relations obtain between V and the NP immediately dominated by K;. The K; themselves express in general what was expressed by Prep-Phrase in the examples from English. But the constituent K; may
87
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
APPE
be realized as {Prep, NP}, {Cas, NP}, as a NP in a specified place in the terminal string, or in other ways. In this system, the Object-of relation, casu quo the karman kiiraka relation, casu quo the Accusative case, has been included. Moreover, the Subject-of relation, casu quo the Nominative caSe, could have been included as well. The lexical item for dadtiti may now be written as follows: (daddti, [+ V, + {_, K" K4 }]).
Since (60) yields only that another rule 1 Vr"INP'r"INPIl. This v In the formalisms i
with Noun-phrases, above, page 65). Tit further investigation in general. The replacement ( introduced by these
(87)
We shall postulate that the symbol occurring inside as well as outside the angles (i.e. K" in this case) will not be involved in the change of position which is being described. Provided we use (instead of (37): above, page 65) certain rules of the type:.Ki-->{NP, Cas;}, and in addition rules to specify the cases and phonological rules, we can account for the paraphrase relation between (85) and (86) by adopting the following general convention. If a verb is given in the lexicon in the form:
when more material
introduction of strati descriptions, whether of the grammatical reJ were formulated in tl
(88)
between, or ordered
this is defined with reference to cases (though it will be differently defined, e.g., with reference to prepositions) so as to imply that the following structures are paraphrases: {{NP, Nom}, {V, {NP', Cas j }}} (89) {{NP', Nom}, {V', {NP, CaSk}}}' (90)
tree, it would be dift scriptions. Nowhere izations of grammat example, defined as duced into a subcat< these expressions we1
When applying this to (87) we can derive from (89):
different kvels of the
{{NP, Nom}, {daddti, K" {NP', Cas.}}} {{NP, Nom}, {dadtiti, {NP, Acc}, {NP', Dat}}};
(91)
{{NP', Nom}, {Matte, K'" {NP, Cas,}}} {{NP', Nom}, {Matte, {NP, Acc}, {NP, Abl}}}.
(93) (94)
(92)
and from (90):
If, on the other han< This accounts for the paraphrase relation between (85) and (86), or any other permutation of the words of these two sentences, respectively. For English we start again from (88), which is now defined with reference to Prep-Phrases so as to imply that the following structures underlie sentences that are paraphrases: NP" Aux"V" ... "(PrepJ"NP' (59) NP'"Aux''V''' ... "(Prepk)"NP. (60)
of transitive verbs, 1t
This expression exac-
the V which fits int expression itself in a other words, expres
for stratified sets SUI matical relations dh grammatical relatior further removed frc NP realized as Pet
This accounts for the paraphrase relation between (55) and (56), provided we start from the lexical item: (buy, [+ V, + {_, NP, {from, NP <sell, + {_, NP, {to, NP}}>}}]). (95) 88
I
, GRAMMAR
APPENDIX: SOME SEMANTIC RELATIONS
ocified place in the Object-of relation, ccusative case, has IUO
the Nominative
ows: K 2 ,K s l>}J).
(87)
as well as outside , change of position 7): above, page 65) ion rules to specify paraphrase relation . convention.
>}])
(88)
: differently defined, following structures (89) (90)
Since (60) yields only the sequence: V"NP""to"NP', we may also stipulate that another rule be framed which generates the equivalent order: V"NP'''NP''. This will account for 'John seUs Peter books'. In the formalisms introduced here, Cases, like Prepositions, are combined with Noun-phrases, and not with Nouns as was done before (see (37), above, page 65). This seems fully justified in the present context, though further investigation is required before a particular solution can be justified in generaL The replacement of strings by stratified sets, which is the new feature introduced by these descriptions, may have to be worked out differently when more material is taken into account. Whatever its final shape, the introduction of stratified sets serves the purpose of formulating grarmnatical descriptions, whether syntactic or semantic, directly and exclusively in terms ofthe grammatical relations which are involved, If these grammatical relations were formulated in the manner first proposed by Chomsky, i.e., as relations between, or ordered pairs of, constituents belonging to different levels of a tree, it would be difficult to introduce these relations directly into the descriptions. Nowhere does Chomsky in fact make direct use of these formalizations of grammatical relations. The grammatical relation object-of, for example, defined as [NP, VPj (Chomsky 1965, 71) cannot be easily ir.troduced into a subcategorization rule since the constituents which occur in these expressions were introduced by different re-writing rules, i.e., occur on
different levels of the tree:
(91)
VP
Jat}));
(92)
"bl})) .
(93) (94)
A
V
(xvi) NP
If, on the other hand, the relation object-of is required for the definition e.g.
i) and (86), or any
of transitive verbs, it is more adequate, as we have seen, to use the expression:
respectively. fined with reference !s underlie sentences
{_,NP}.
(59) (60) ) and (56), provided
), {to, NP)}>}}J). (95)
(96)
This expression exactly characterizes the relation between, on the one hand, the V which fits into the open place, and, on the other hand, the entire expression itself in as far as it represents the VP directly dominating it, In other words, expressions such as [NP, Vj may be eliminated altogether, for stratified sets such as {__, NP} characterize the corresponding grammatical relations directly. This is even more obvious when we consider a grammatical relation between constituents belonging to levels of a tree still further removed from each other. The grammatical relation between the NP realized as Peter, immediately dominated by Prep-Phrase which is 89
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
immediately dominated by VP in (xiii) (above, page 85), could not be expressed by [NP, VPj, since this relation already defines the relation object-oj This relation is however precisely characterized by the stratified set: {V, NP, {Prep, - l l . (97) )
As noted before (page 35), the expressions for stratified sets are derived from wild trees by using a familiar method, i.e., in the same manner in which (labelled) bracketing is derived from trimmed trees (the braces which mark the boundaries of sets could, of course, also be labelled, if necessary):
s
s .~
~
A
NP
V
/ NP NP
-, Trans!. 1,1: by Y. 0
'""
/~ V
NP
(xvii) trimmed tree (NP"'(Vr>NP)) bracketed string
A${iidhyiiy[ of paI).ini, el -, Trans!. by L. Ren01: Kiisikiivrtti of Jayaditya
wild tree {NP, {V, NFl} stratified set
The illustrations discussed in this appendix further support the view that some of the syntactic or semantic properties earlier described in terms of the word order or surface structure of terminal strings, are more adequately, more naturally and more generally described in terms of the grammatical relations on which they depend, i.e., in terms of stratified sets.
Tantraviirttika of Kum~ in the Anandasrama -, Transl. by G.N.Jha Nirukta ofYaska with 1:
1918-1942. Brhaddevatii of Sauna1 Cambridge, Mass., 1 Mahiibhii~ya of PatafljaMiinameyodaya of Nara Sastri, Madras 1933 Mimiil!1siisiitra of Jaimi: "
Mimiif/1siisiitrabhii$ya of -, Trans!. by G.N.Jha ]J.gvidhiina, transl. by J. fS.kpriitiSiikhya"with Uva Viikyapadiya Bhartr!: SaJ'vadarSanasal!1graha ( -, Transl. by E.B.Co\\' Siddhiintakaumudi of Bl nasi-Patna 1962.
of
Allen, W. S. (1953), Ph, Apte, V. S. (1963"), Th. Syntax for the Use c
I
Berge, C. (1958), Thear; Bloch, J. (1906), La phr Bloomfield, L. (1933), 1 Brockelmann, C. (1956) Brough, J. (1953), 'Son Society, 161-76. Buiskool, H. E. (1939), Leiden. Canedo, J. (1937), Zur tingen. Cardona, G. (1965), 'C Oriental Institute (B;
Chol11sky, N. (1957), S)
90
GRAMMAR
85), could not be ,fines the relation ,d by the stratified (97) ed sets are derived ae manner in which braces which mark if necessary):
"'~VP
A
V
NP
(xvii) ild tree
{V, NP}} tified set )port the view that .cribed in terms of. e more adequately, )f the grammati cal . 1 sets.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS A$!tidhyayi of paI.1ini, ed. and trans!. by O. BoehtIingk, Reprint Hildesheim 1964. -, TransI. by L. Renou, I-ID, Paris 1948-1954. Kiisikiivrlti of Jayaditya, ed. by Sobhita Misra, Banaras 19523. -, Transl. 1,1: by Y. Ojihara and L. Renoll, Paris 1960-1962. Tantravlirttika of Kumarila Bhatta, ed. (with Mimii1]1siisfitra and Mimiifllsiisutrabhii~ya) in the Anandasrama Sanskrit Series, Poona 1929-34. -, Trans1. by G.N.Jha (Bibliotheca Indica, 161), Calcutta 1924. Nirukta ofYaska with Durga's commentary, ed. by H. M. and R. G .Bhadkamkar, Bombay 1918-1942. Brhaddevatii of Saunaka, ed. and transl. by A. A. Macdonell (Harvard Oriental Series), Cambridge, Mass., 1904. Mahiibhii$ya ofPatanjali, ed. by F.KieIhorn, I-III, Bombay 1880--1885. Miinameyodaya of NanlyaIJa, ed. and trans!. by C.Kunhan Raja and S.S.Suryanarayana Sastri, Madras 1933. MfmiimsiiSlltra of laimini: see Tantraviitttika. Mimiimsiisiitrabhii$ya of Sabara: see Tantraviirttika. -, Trans!. by G.N.Jha (Gaekwad's Oriental Series), Baroda 1933-1936. l$.gvidhiina, trans!' by J.Gonda, Utrecht 1951. J!.kpriitiSiikhya with Uvata's commentary, ed. and transl. by M.D.Shastri,AlIahabad 1931 • Viikyapadfya of Bhartrhari, T, ed. and transl. by M. Biardeau, Paris 1964. Sarvadarsanasamgraha of Miidhava, ed. by V.S.Abhyankar, Poona 1951. -, Transl. by E.B.Cowell and A.E.Gough, Reprint Varanasi 1961. Siddhiintakaumudi of Bhattoji Dik~ita, ed. and transl. by"S.C."vasu, Reprint Delhi-Varanasi-Patna 1962.
B. OTHER WORKS Allen, W. S. (1953), Phonetics in Ancient Inria, London-New York-Toronto . .Apte, V. S. (1963 25), The Student's Guide to Sanskrit Composition. A Treatise on Sanskrit Syntax for the Use of Schools and Colleges, Varanasi. Berge, C. (1958), Theorie des graphes et ses applications, Paris. Bloch, J. (1906), La phrase nomillale en sanskrit, Pc:.ris. Bloomfield, L. (1933), Language, New York. Brockelmann, C. (1956), Hebriiische SYlIlax, Neukirchen. Brough, J. (1953), 'Some Indian Theories of Meaning" Transactions of the Philological Society, 161-76. Buiskool, H. E. (1939), The Tripiidi. being an abridged English recast ofPurvatriisiddham, Leiden. Canedo, J. (1937), Zur Wort- und Satzstellung in der alt- und mittelindischen Prosa, Gottingen. Cardona, G. (1965), 'On Translating and Formalizing Pal)inian Rules', Journal of the Oriental Institute (Baroda), 14, 306-14. Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures1 's-Gravenhage.
91
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
(1964), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, The Hague. (1965), Aspects afthe Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass. (1966a), Cartesian Linguistics. A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought, New York-London. (1966b), 'Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar', in Current Trends ;,Z Linguistics III, 1-60. ~ \and G. A. Miller (1963), 'Introduction to the Formal Analysis of Natural Languages" in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, New York, II, 269-322. Curry, H. B. (1961), 'Some Logical Aspects of Grammatical Structure', in Structure of Language and its Mathematical /.spects, Providence, 56-58. De1brueck, B. (1878), Die altindische Wortfolge aus dem <;atapathabriihmat;a dargestellt (Syntaktische Forschungen, III), Halle. - (1888), Altindische Sylllax (Syntaktische Forschungen V). Dover, K. J. (1960), Greek Word Order, Cambridge. Edgerton, F. (1928), 'Some Linguistic Notes on the Mimailsa System', Language, 4, 171-7. ~ (1929), The Mfmiitisii Nyiiya Prakiisa or Apadevf, New Haven-London. Emeneau, M. B. (1955), 'India and Linguistics', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 75, 145-53. Faddegon, B. (1918), The Vaife$ika System described with the help of the oldest texts, Amsterdam. ~ (1936), Studies on PiilJini's Grammar, Amsterdam. Fleisch, H. (1956), L'arabe classique. Esquisse d'une structure linguistiqlle, Beyrouth. Fowler, M. (1965), 'How ordered are Pa!)ini's rules?', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 85, 44-7. FrauwalIner, E. (1960), 'Sprachtheorie und Philosophie im Mahabha$yam des Patafijali', Wiener ZeitschriJtfiir die Kunde Siid- und Ostasiens lind Archiv fur indische Philosophie, 4,92-118. Flick, J. (1955),
92
-
(1966), 'Indian The guage, 2, 377-93. Minard, A. (1936), La Oertel, H. (1930), Zur Ojihara, Y. and L. ReI Ore, O. (1962), Theory Pos, H. J. (1932-1933), Deutsche Philosoph, Puri, B. N. (1957), Ind Reckendorf, H. (1898), Reichling, A. (1961), 'I Lingua, 10, 1-17. Renou, L. (1940), La 1 siecle, 1,1: Introdue (1947), Les ecoles 1 (1948-1954):·soo UJ (1951), Sankara: p, (1955), 'Les nipiita Pii1)ineennes I, Pari (1956), Histoire de (1957), Terminolog. (1960), Le destin dl (1961), 'Grammair Paris, 105-31. (1963), 'Sur Ie ger 165-216. (1967), 'pal.).ini', iJ Hague-Paris. and J. Filliozat (H Rocher, R. (:l964a),'" Society, 84, 44-54. (1964b), 'The Tecl gical Journal, 2, 31 (1965), 'La formal description linguis Rosenbaum, P. S. (19( Formation" Joni'll, Sarup, L. (1920), The Subralunanya Sastri, Thiruvaiyaru. Saumjan, S. K. (1965), of Language', Fou Scharfe, H. (1961), Di Sko1d, H. (1926), The Speyer, J. S. (1896), I logie und Altertur Staal, J. F. (1961), Ne (1962), 'Negation School of Oriental (1963a), Euc/ides e (1963b), Review ( 252-6. (1965a), 'Context(1965b), 'Generati (1965c), 'Reificati<
GRAMMAR
"lOllalist Thought, New 7urrent Trends III Lin-
lfNatural Languages', ) 22. _cture', in Structure 0/ rabriihmQlJa dargeste[/t
[l', Language, 4,171-7. Jndon. 'rlcan Orlental Society,
?lp 0/ the oldest texts, 'stique, Beyrouth. the Amerlcall Orlental
ha$yam des Patafijali', iiI' lndische Philosoph ie, ~
du style arabe. Trad.
. en vielllndlen, Leiden. et ltloyenne en langlle (1958), Delhi. Mass. Ipplikativnaja poroida19uage, 40, 397-410.
n.
antics''', Linguistics, 3, 'ons, Cambridge, Mass. 1965). lrammatische· Analyse,
Hague. ;', Foundations 0/ LanI-N, Paris. and Logic'. Journal of
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1966), 'Indian Theorists on the Nature of the Sentence (viikya)'. Foundations 0/ Language, 2, 377-93. Minard, A (1936), La subordination dans la prose vedique, Paris. Oertel, H. (1930), Zur indischen Apologetik, Stuttgart. Ojihara, Y. and L. Renou (1960-1962): see under A., Kiisikiivrtti. Ore, O. (1962), Theory 0/ Graphs, Providence. Pos, H. J. (1932-1933), 'Uber den Aufbau der grammatischen Interpretation', Bliitter /iir Deutsche Philosophie, 6, 295-314. Puri, B. N. (1957), India in the Time 0/ Patiinjali, Bombay. Reckendorf, H. (1898), Die sylltaktischen Verhiiltnisse des Arabischen, Leiden. Reichling, A (1961), 'Principles and Methods of Syntax: Cryptanalytical Formalism', Lingua, 10, 1-17. Renou, L. (1940), La Durghalavrtti de SarOl;adeva. Traite grammatical en sanskrit du XIle sieele, 1,1: Introduction, Paris. (1947), Les ecoles wJdiques ef laformation du Veda, Paris. (l948-~954): see under A, A~(iidhyiiyi. (1951), Sarikara: Pro/egomenes au Vediinta. Paris. (1955), 'Les nlpiitana-sutra de paI).ini et questions diverses', in Etudes Vedlques et Piil;ineennes I, Paris, 103-30. (1956), Histolre de la langue sanskrite, Lyon-Paris. (1957), Terminologie grammaticaie dll sanskrit, Paris. (1960), Le destin du Veda dans l'lnde (Etudes Vediques et Pii~llneennes VI), Paris. (1961), 'Grammaire et poetique en sanskrit", in Etudes Vedlques el Pii{lineennes VTII, Paris, 105-31. (1963), 'Sur Ie genre du sutra dans la litterature sanskrite" Journal Aslatique, 251, 165-216. (1967), 'PaQini', in Current Trends 1'n Linguistlcs, V: Linguisti'cs ill South Asla, The Hague-Paris. and J. Filliozat (1953), L'inde classique II, Paris-Hanoi . Rocher, R. (l964a),"'Agent" et "Objet" chez PalJini', Journal 0/ the American Oriental Society, 84, 44-54. (1964b), 'The Technical Term helu in PalJini's A${iidhyayi', Vlshveshvaranand Indologfcal Journal, 2, 31-40. (1965), 'La formation du futur periphrastique sallskrit selon Pa~Jini: un exemple de description linguistique', Annali'. lstituto Orlentale di Napoli', 6, 15-22. Rcsenbaum, P. S. (1967), 'Phrase Structure Principles of English Complex Sentence Formation', Journal of Linguisti'cs, 3, 103-18. Sarup, L. (1920), The Nlgha{l(U and the Nirukta, Introduction, London etc. Subrahmanya Sastri, P. S. (1960-1962), Lectures Oil PatOJijali's Mahiibhii~ya, I-VI, Thiruvaiyaru. Saumjan, S. K. (1965), 'Outline of the Applicational Generative Model for the Description of Language', Foundations of Language, 1, 189-222. Scharfe, H. (1961), Die Logik lm Mahiibhii$ya, Berlin. Sk6ld, H. (1926), The Nirukta. ltsplace in OidIndianLiterature-Its Etymologies, Lund etc. Speyer, J. S. (1896), Vedlsche und Sanskrit-SYlllax (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 1,6), Strassburg. Staal, J. F. (1961), Nambudiri Veda Recitation, The Hague. (1962), 'Negation and the Law of Contradiction in Indian Thought', Bulletin 0/ the School of Oriental and A/dean Studies, 25, 52-71. (1963a), Euc!idesenPiilJini. Twee Methodische Richtlijnen voor de Filosofie, Amsterdam. (1963b), Review of Scharfe (1961) in Journal 0/ the American Oriental Society, 83, 252-6. (1965a), 'Context-sensitive Rules in P.1I).ini~, Foundatfolls of Language, 1, 63-72. (1965b), 'Generative Syntax. and Semantics', Foundations 0/ Language, 1, 133-54. (1965c), 'Reification, Quotation and Nominalization', in Logic and Philosophy. Essays
93
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
in honour of J. M. Bocheiiskl, Amsterdam, 151-87. (1965d), 'Euclid and Paoini', Philosophy East and West, 15, 99-116. (1966a), 'Room at the Top in Sanskrit. Ancient and Modern Descriptions of Nominal Composition', Indo-Iranian Journal, 9, 165-98. (1966b), Reviews in: The Journal 0/ Symbolic Logic, 31, 245-51. (1966c), 'Par.dni tested by Fowler's Automaton', Journal of the American Oriental Society. 86, 206-9. (1~66d). 'Indian Semantics,!', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 86, 304-11. (1967a), 'Some Semantic Relations between Sentoids', Foundations of Language, 3,66-88. (1967b), 'Sanskrit Philosophy of Language', in Currellt Trends in Linguistics, V. Thieme, P. (1931), 'Gramrnatik und Sprache, ein Probiem def aItindischen Sprachwissenschaff, Zeitschri/t fiir Indologie und Iranistik, 8, 23-32. (1935a), Pii~lini and the Veda, Allahabad. (1935b), 'Bha~ya zu varttika 5 zu PaI)ini 1.1.9 und seine einheimischen Erklarer. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Wiirdigung der indischen grammatischen Scholastik', Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Zll Gottingen, Berlin, 171-216. (1956), 'Paoini and the pao.iniyas', Journal of the American Oriental Society, 76,1-23. Thommen, E. (1903), Die Wortstellung im Nachvedischen, Altindischen und im Mittelilldischen, GUtersloh. Uhlenbeck, E. M. (1963), 'An Appraisal of Transformation Theory', Lingua, 12, 1-18. Varma, S. (1929), Critical Studies in the Phonetic Observations of Indian Grammarians, London. Wackernagel, J. and L. Renou (1957), Altindische Grammatik: Introduction Genera/e, G6ttingen. Zandvoort, R. W. (1961), A Handbook of English Grammar, Groningen.
Abhyankar, V. S. 91 Allen, W. S. 17,91 Apte, V. S. 1, 11-2, 21, . Aristotle 44 A~iiidhyayi see: paQ.ini Atharvaveda 17, 24 Bazell, C. E. ix Benfey, Th. 51 Bergaigne, A. 51 Berge, C. 15,91 Bhadkamkar, H. M. anc Bhartrhari vii, 5, 91 Bhattoji Dik~ita 19, 42, Biardeau, M. 91 Bloch, J. 55, 91 Bloomfield, L. 64,91 Boehtlingk, O. 29, 37, 91 Bonebakker, S. A. ix Brainerd, B. ix, 15 Brhaddevata 17, 21, 25, ~ Brockelmann, C. 72, 91 Brough, J. 17,91 Buiskool, H. E. 3, 91 Canedo, J. 55-57, 58, 91 Cardona, G. 27,91 Chomsky, N. passim "Cowell, E. B. 48, 91 Curry, H. B. 13-4, 92 Delbrueck, B. 51-3, 56, I Denizeau, C. 92 Dover. K. J. 57, 60-1, 72 Du Marsais 13 Durga 17, 25 Edgerton, F. 20, 92 Emeneau, M. B. 17,
~2
Faddegon, B. 3, 37-8, 44 Fillioza" J. 39, 93
94
GRAMMAR
16. criptions of Nominal
e American Oriental
INDEXES
Society, 86, 304-11. lotions of Language, in Linguistics, V. ischen Sprachwissen-
lischen ErkHirer. Ein atischen Scholastik', . Berlin, 171-216. :tal Society. 76,1-23. chen und 1m Mittel-
,Lingua, 12, 1-18. fndian Grammarians, 'traduction Genera/e, ~en.
A. NAMES
Abhyankar, V. S. 91 Allen, W.S.17,91 Apte, V. S. I, 11-2, 21, 62, 91 Aristotle 44 A~!iidhyiiyi see: PaJ)ini Atharvaveda 17, 24 BazeIl, C. E. ix Benfey, Th. 51 Bergaigne, A. 51 Berge, C. IS, 91 Bhadkamkar, H. M. and R. G. 91 Bhartrhari vii, 5, 91
Bhattoji Dik~jta 19, 42, 91 Biardeau, M. 91 Bloch, J. 55, 91 Bloomfield, L. 64, 91 Boehtlingk, O. 29, 37, 91 Bonebakker, S. A. ix Brainerd, B. ix, 15 Brhaddevatii 17, 21, 25, 91
Brockelmann, C. 72, 91 Brough, J. 17,91 BuiskooI, H. E. 3, 91
Canedo,J. 55-57, 58, 91 Cardona, G. 27, 91 Chomsky, N. passim Cowell, E. B. 48, 91 Curry, H. B. 13-4, 92 Delbrueck, B. 51-3, 56,68,71; 92 Denizeau, C. 92 Dover, K. J. 57, 60-1, 72, 92 Du Marsais 13 Durga 17, 25 Edgerton, F. 20, 92 Emeneau, M. B. 17, 92 Faddegon,B. 3, 37-8,44,92 FilIiozat, J. 39, 93
Fleisch, H. 72, 92 Fodor, J. A. 63, 92 Fowler, M. 29, 40, 92 Frauwallner, E. 44, 48-9, 92 Flick, J. 73, 92 Gonda, J. 25, 55, 57-60, 63, 91, 92 Gough, A. E. 91 Greenberg, J. H. 57, 92 Hall, B. 14, 68, 92 Halle, M. ix Haradatta 29 Harivrsabha 5 Hiriyanna, M. 20, 49, 92 Hirt, H. 13, 64, 92 Hiz, H. 13 Jaimini 21, 45, 91 Jayaditya 91 Jespersen, O. 68, 92 Jha, G. N. 20, 91, 92 Kaiyata 29 Kasika (vrtti) 32, 91 Katre, S. M. 24 Katyayana 19, 30, 32 Katz, J. J. 12,42, 63, 65, 72, 75-6, 92 Kiutsa 24-5, 45, 47, 49, 61 Kielhorn, F. 5, 19,27, 32-3, 41, 43-4, 49,53,91, 92 Kraak, A. ix, 71, 75, 79, 92 Kumarila Bhatta 21, 47, 91 Kunhan Raja, C. 20, 48, 91, 92 Kunjunni Raja, K. 48, 92 Lees, R. B. 2, 9, 92 Lennep, D. F. W. van ix Levin, S. R. 46, 92 Macdonell, A. A. 26, 91
95
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
Madhava 91 Mahiibhiirata 55 Mahiibhii~ya see: Pataiijali Miinameyodaya 48, 91 Marouzeau, J. 60, 62-4, 72, 92 MatilaI, B. K. 39, 92-3 Miller, G. A. 35, 63, 92 MfmiNnsii 19, 21, 24---5, 45-9, 61 Mfmamsii-sutra 21, 45, 47, 49, 91 Mfmii1]1sa-siitra-bhii.yya 21, 45, 47, 91 Minard, A. 55, 93 Mutanabbi 73 NageSa (Nagoji) Bhatta 19 Narayal.1a 9! Nirilkta 17, 21, 24-6, 43, 45, 48-9, 91, 93 Ojihara, Y. 29, 91. 93 Ore, O. 15,93
PadamGlijari 29 Piir:tini 2-3, 17-9, 21, 23, 25-46, 64, 68, 87,91-4 Patafijali I, 5, 18-9,27-8, 30, 34, 37, 41-4,48-9,53,61,63,69, 91-3 Pos, H. J. vii, 93 Postal, P. M. 2, 12, 42. 72, 75-6, 92 Pradipa 29 PriitiSiikhya 17, 22, 24 PllrVQ-Mimiiftisii see: Mimiimsa
Reckendorf, H. 73-4, 93 Reichling, A. 71, 93 Renall, L. 1,5,16-7,23-4,26-7,29-30, 32, 37-40,42-3,45,49, 62, 91, 93-4 ~gveda 17, 21-3, 25, 48 .fl.gvidhiina 25, 91 Rijk, R. P. G. de 74 R,.kpriitiSiikhya 17, 21-3, 91 Rocher, R. 30, 39, 41, 93 Roser.baum. P. S.-4, 5, 74, 93 Sabara 21, 45-7, 91 Siimaveda 17, 25
Sankara 20, 93 Sarup, L. 17,93 Sarvadarsanasamgraha 47,91 SatapathabrahmOl"la 51, 55 Saumjan, S. K. 14, 93 Saunaka 91 Sayal)a 25, 48 Scharfe, H. 27, 49, 53, 93 Shastri, M. D. 91 Siddhiintakaumudi 19, 42, 91 Sk6Id, H. 28, 93 Smith, A. 13 Speyer, J. S. 53-7, 68, 93 Staal, J. F. 5, 7, 12-3, 16-7, 26-7, 29, 40,42-4,48-9, 53, 81-90, 93-4 Subrahmanya Sastri, P. S. 28, 93 Suryanarayana Sastri, S. S. 48, 91 Taittiriya-samhita 56 Tantravarttika see: Kumarila Bhatta Thieme, P. 24, 28, 30, 37, 39, 49, 94 Thommen, E. 55, 57, 94
UhIenbeck, E. M. 71, 94 Uttara-MimalJ1sii see: Vedanta Uvala 17, 23, 91 VaiSe$ika 44, 92 Viikyapadiya see: Bhartrhari Vardhamana 47 Varma, S. 17, 94 Vasu, S. C. 91 Vedanta 19-20 Vi~~lUpurii~la 58 Vos, A. L. ix
Wackernagel, J. 62, 94 WesIy, P. G. E. ix Whitney, W. D. 2, 3, 16, 37 Yajurveda 17 Yaska 91
Zandvoort, R. W. 85, 94 B. TECHNICAL TERMS: SANSKRIT
adhikaral)a 38-9 adhyaya 18 ananupiirvyasarphita 24 anubandha 27 anuvrtti 19,40 apadana 38-9, 41, 87 apasabda 46
96
abhisarpbandha 1-2, 13.28, 30, 32, 36 avyayibhava 29 akaflk~a
48
adesa 31 anupiirvi 1, 22, 28 anupiirvya I, 23, 29, 32
anupurvyasarphiHi 24 uccarat).a 45-6, 61 upasarjana 43 karaQ.a 38-9 kartar 38-9 karman 36-42, 87-8 kfunacara 28 karaka 3, 36-45, 61, 64, krt 41-3 kramapatha 22-3 gUl)a 27 chandas 18, 26, 29 taddhita 41-2 tiit 41-2 dvandva 25 niyata 46-7 pada 1,20 padapatha 21-4 paribhii,a(-sUlra) 19, 20 pada 18, 47 prakrti 46 pratyaya 46 pradha~a 43
analyzability condition base 4-6 et passim company-restriction 83, company-sensitive rules 75,77, 83 competence 61-4, 72 complex symbols 72, 8J context-restriction 83, ~ context-sensitive rules ~ 75,83 deep structure 3, 37 et. functor 13 genotype 14 .. grammatical relations! 43-4,64-5,73,77, 7, kernel 80
INDEXES
GRAMMAR
I
anupurvyasalTlhita 24
prayoga 28, 61, 69
\a 47, 91
ucciiral)a 45-6, 61
bahuvrihi 41
51,55 3
upasarjana 43
3,93 1,42,91
1,93 I, 16-7,26-7,29, .81-90,93-4 P. S. 28, 93 i, S. S. 48, 91
bhil~ii
yathakamam 28
kamacara 28 karaka 3, 36-45, 61, 64, 79, 87-8 krt 41-3
lopa 32 vakya 1, 20, 45, 47 varttika 19, 25, 32, 41
gUQ.a 27
vikrti 22 vrddhi 27
chandas 18,26,29
sarphitapa,tha 21--4 sarpjna 27
taddhita 41-2 tin 41-2 dvandva 25
),37, 39, 49, 94 ,94
niyata 46-7
sarpjoin 27 sal11dhi II, 17, 20-3, 36, 54, 79 saJ.11nidhi 48 saQlpradana 38-9, 87 sarpbandha 1-2, 13,20, 30, 36, 43 samasa 25, 41-2, 46
pada 1,20
sa.marthya 40 sutra 4-5, 16-8,26--32.,38-43,47
padapatha 21-4 paribh~~a(-sutra)
19, 20
sthanin 31 sthanivadbhava 31-2 svatantra 29
pada 18, 47
artrhari
laghava 19, 40
kramapatha 22-3
:umarila BhaHa
,94 : Vedanta
18, 26
karaQ.a 38-9 kartar 38-9 karman 36-42, 87-8
prakrti 46 pratyaya 46
pradhana 43
hetu 38-9 C. TECHNICAL TERMS: ENGLISH
. )4
16,37
analyzability condition 31-2, 75-7
labelled bracketing 34-5, 90
base 4-6 et passim
pe:formance 61-4, 72 phenogrammatics 14 phenotype 14
company-restriction 83, 86 company-sensitive rules 15, 65- 7, 69-70,
75, 77, 83 competence 61-4, 72 complex symbols 72, 81-4, 86, 88 context-restriction 83, 86 context-sensitive rules 4, 9-11,15,65,
,94
75,83
recursive rules 4-6, 33-6, 53-4, 74-5, 79-80 stratified sets 35-6, 66-7; 69, 72-3, 77, 80,
89-90 subcategorization rules 83, 86, 89 surface structure 3, 78-80, 82, 85-6
deep structure 3, 37 et passim
13. 28, 30, 32, 36
functor 13 genotype 14 grammatical relations 8-9, 14-5, 37-9,
43-4, 64-5, 73, 77, 79-82, 85-6, 89-90 32
kernel 80
taxonomy 2, 8, 71 tectogrammatics 13 transformational markers 7, 56, 79 transformational rules 4, 7, 9-12, 40-4, 52,
56-7, 63-5, 67, 74-80 (trimmed) trees 6, 15,33-5,51-4,76, 81-3 wild trees 15, 34-6, 80-3, 86-7
97
WORD ORDER IN SANSKRIT AND UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR D. LANGUAGES
Arabic 72-4 Archaic Chinese 73
Indo-European 58, 73 Japanese 68
English 7-12, 63-4, 67-8, 70, 74--7, 81-2,
8t-9 French 68
Latin 13, 60, 62-4,72,75 Russian 68-9 Sanskrit passim
German 13, 68-9
Greek 57, 60-1, 72
Turkish 74
Hebrew 72
Vedic 17-8, 20-6, 29-30, 45-9, 58, 62
98
J
