The Transformational Grammar of Tolkaappiyar
It is generally taken even by Indian linguists that Transformational Generative Grammar came into the linguistic world only after Chomsky’s Aspects of Syntax and which was born out of a criticism of Structural Linguistics such as that of Harris. But this may not be true if we look at the several sutras in Eccaviyal that deal with MozimaaRRu, how sentences become transformed in the context of generating more complex meanings where semantic ambiguity comes to prevail because of that.
There is an important difference. While Chomsky’s TG grammar deals with syntactic transformations independent of meanings, this is NOT SO with Tolkaapiyam, where it is semantically founded. Basic sentences are combined and complex sentences are generated to create more complex and sometimes ambiguous meanings - i.e. by poruL puNar iyalbu - ways of generating complex meanings. Here because of semantic considerations, transformed sentences that undergo changes in prosodic features are also noted.
The FOUR classes of transformations recognized are called : NiranniRai, CuNNam, AdimaRi amd MozimaaRRu and of which the NiranniRai appears to be purely syntactical while the remaining prosodic.
The Four Different Ways Meanings are Communicated in Verses:
399
niraniRai cuNNam adimaRi mozimaaRRu
ena n_aan kenpa poruLpuNar iyalbee
It is intended to explicate how words are combined in literary compositions so that appropriate meanings get communicated.
Meaning:The scholars will say that the different patterns of word combinations in literary compositions that communicate meanings are the four: niraniRai, cuNNam, AdimaRi and MozimaaRRu.
Comments:
Tol. isolates here only the non normal ways in which meanings are communicated in literary compositions, it being unnecessary to explicate the natural ways in which meanings are communicated in both existential and literary uses of the language where the meanings are immediately grasped. These will be explained at the appropriate sutras.
Notes (Loga)
In this sutra and those that follow, what we have is the study of meanings which are ambiguous or uncertain and which require various of kinds of TRANSFORMATIONS to disambiguate. The natural order of words are disturbed and transformed and in that specific meanings are communicated. These sutras deal with the various ways in which these transformational processes must be overcome to get at the meanings.
401
The Way of getting at the Meaning by the Method of NiranniRai
avaRRuL
niraniRai taanee
vinaiyinum peyarinum ninaiyat toonRi
colveeRu nilai.i poruLveeRu nilaiayal
Meaning: Among the ways (of getting at the intended meaning) enumerated above, the NiranniRai method consists in reflecting on the scattered NPs and VPs collectively and reorganizing them so that each NP is followed with the most appropriate VP.
adal veel amar nookkki ninmukang kaNdee
udalum irintoodum uuzmalarum paarkkum
kadalumkanaiyiruLum aampalaum paambum
tadamatiyam aamenRu taam
Here the VP’s udalum ( will suffer) oodum ( will run away) , uuzmalarum (will blossom) paarkkum (will see) must be connected with the NP’s kadal ( the seas) iruL ( darkness) aambal ( the lotus) paambu (the snake) in that order and reorganize all as the conjunction of the sentences : kadal udalum ( the seas will suffer ), iruL oodum ( the darkness will run away) ,aambal malarum (the lotus will blossom) and paambu paarkkum ( the snake will see)
When it is said : kodikuvaLai koddai nucupuNkaN meeni”, the NP’s kodi ( creeper), kuavaLai (the flower), koddai (the seeds) go with the NP’s nucuppu ( the waist), uNkaN (the devouring eyes),and meeni (the body) where we have to derive the sentences ‘ kodu nucuppu ( the creeper-like waist), kauvaLaik kaN ( the lotus-like eyes), koddai meeni ( the seed colored (i.e. black) body
Now when you come across such constructions only with verbal nouns and VP’s, then apply the same rules.
On account of it being said, only by reflection that the proper meaning emerges, we can consider all constructions where unless properly reorganized the meanings do not emerge clearly. When it is said “ kaLiruG kantum poola naLikadaR kuumbuG kalanum toonRum( Mayilai- pp 282), because the kuumbu( the beams) is not a possible analogy for kaLiRu (the elephant) and the Kantu (the pole) for the kalan ( the boat) , it is best to reorganize as :the boat-like elephant, the beams like the wooden pole(for tying down the elephants)
Notes ( Loga)
It looks as though we have here some elementary principles of Transformational Grammar as aspects of disambiguation whereby the HIDDEN and CONCEALED proper form and order of a number of sentences juxtaposed are RECOVERED through appropriate reordering and reorganizing maneuvers. The initial sentence has the surface form of : {{NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4 }& {VP1, VP2, VP3, VP4}} This surface form is semantically ambiguous or confusing and in order to disambiguate and attain an understanding of the intended, the whole sentence has to be CAPTURED semantically the SAME as { NP1&VP1, NP2&VP2, NP3&VP3, NP4&VP4}. Here the recovered set is the INTENDED and which has the SAME MEANING as the presented. The order of words in the presented form or the Surface Structure, does not make any sense immediately but which contains within itself the Deep Structure on the recovery of which the meaning becomes quite obvious.
Using this and other truth-functional notions, I have developed Process Grammar as an alternative to the TG Grammar of Chomsky. For example the subject-predicate sentence “The dog is barking” when used for assertion, meaning a certain proposition in which the referred object the dog is presupposed as real and assertion being an attribution of something to this and which can agreed upon or not so.
This sentence and hence the assertion can be considered to have been generated out of TWO more primitive kinds of assertions : ( That1 is dog )
O (That1 is barking) ------>The dog is barking ( the number refers to the identity of the object). As Teyvaciliaiyaar has noted in the chapter on KiLaviyaakkam ( the genesis of speech), unless it is presupposed that the first is true ( as indicated by the symbol “o” ) the assertion “ The dog is barking” will be impossible. In making truth presuppositions central in the generation of subject-predicate and other kinds of complex sentences, Process Grammar differs from not only the TG Grammar of Chomsky but also the predicate Calculus of Russel-Whitehead.
Remarks:
We can see that it is the question of AMBIGUITY in meaning that forces one to RECOVER another sentence by de-transforming the given where the meaning is not ambiguous at all or less ambiguous.
This, I understand, was also the take-off point for the TG grammar of Chomsky. The TG Grammar of Tol or what I have called Process Grammar is semantically based and is not purely syntactical.
Such matters remain to be studied in greater depth and I hope to take up such issues in greater details later.
ULLAGANAR.
( EDITING AND RE-PARAGRAPHING BY HIS STUDENT )
No comments:
Post a Comment