LINGUISTICS AS "I" UNDERSTAND(S) IT

LINGUISTICS AS “I” UNDERSTAND(S) IT DEBAPRASAD BANDYOPADHYAY Linguistics as “I” Understand(s) it by Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay © Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay, 2012 All rights reserved. No Part of this publication may not be reproduced in any forms. Cover: Painting: E.M. Escher Design: Biswajit Biswas  D e d ica t e d t o My numerous students from whom, I have learnt how to facilitate… CONTENTS INTRODUCTION i-ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii CHAPTER-I ENTRY POINT: HUMAN DISCIPLINES 1-17 CHAPTER-II LANGUAGE: THE OBJECT OF STUDY 18-30 CHAPTER-III VARIATIONS AND VALUES OF LANGUAGE 31-43 CHAPTER-IV LEVELS OF LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS 44-59 CHAPTER-V LINGUISTICS 60-65 CHAPTER-VI HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS 66-75 CHAPTER-VII THE LINGUIST 76-79 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 80-83  INTRODUCTION In my supposed mother tongue, Bangla, there are two phrases—khei dharano, “providing a clue or some hints to the listener” and dhartai dewa, “adding an instrumental or vocal clue in music or in conversation”. In this book, what I have done is nothing more than providing a clue (dhartai or khei) to the performing readers, who are going to open a new file in linguistics. The initiator in linguistics, by getting the clue, might get into the other sources to perform further journey in the crisscross roads, rocky mountains and lanes or even blind lanes or non-lanes of different human disciplines. However there are problems. The representation of linguistics as a human disciplines, here in this book, does not fully match with the mainstream representation as little has been discussed on the formal model theoretic linguistics, especially intricacies of analytical procedures, instead the book offers an “other” linguistics, which, by forgetting its stipulated autonomy, takes its recourse to many other disciplines, viz., psychoanalysis, economics, sociology etc. and proposes a plurimethodical approach just like a bricoleur. Therefore, the readers, the new initiators in linguistics, who do not like to be a part of this “other”, must be cautious about this book on “other” linguistics. The entry point of this book is the basic notions of philosophy of science or epistemology in general in connection with the human discipline, “linguistics”. In the next chapter, it switches over to the object of linguistic analysis: “language”. And then, after explaining the internalized and externalized language, the object of study of linguistics, it describes the levels of linguistic analysis. After that, it offers the definition of linguistics per se. The book then switches over to the historical account of linguistics with a definite historiographical standpoint that shows the epistemological thresholds as well as amalgamation among general grammar, comparative philology and linguistics. Lastly, it depicts the role of a linguist as a voluntary (?) member of academic tribe. This book is written in a question-answer format and sometimes offers multiple answers to a single question to maintain the politics of tolerance and to demonstrate regard for plurality. The multiple answers also demonstrate that this work is a bricolage—a work of a bricoleur like me, who has collected materials from divergent sources without following a presupposed blueprint. i The multiple answers are abbreviated here as A1, A2 etc. Sometimes, very few key words are not elaborated in answers, but they are put as a “khei” or “dhartai” to further reading of this human discipline. Some key words with asterisks indicate neologism made by the author. The italicized texts in answers represent author’s self-reflexivity and act as a rem(a)inder for the “other” (non-mainstream) linguistics. I will be happy if any initiator would be interested in linguistics and human science (and problems thereof) in general after reading this small book for new-comers in Human Science. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay 14.04.2012 anekanta@gmail.com Anekanta 23/1 Joy Narayan Banerji Lane Baranagar, Kokata-700036 West Bengal, India ii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am grateful to Giandomenico Sica and for inviting me, an odd member of the academic tribe, to write a book on basic linguistics for a wide range of readers, hailing from different disciplines. And he also suggested the design of such odd book with question-answers and key-words so that readers could themselves find the associations of the key-words, which are put as hints for the larger knowledge-network. I am also thankful to those, my teachers and students, who enable me to learn many problematic matters of language and philosophy. In fact, this book is based on my 27 years teaching experiences in the both organized and unorganized sectors of academics. I must mention the names of late Sadhanprasad Bandyopadhyay, late Sunil Kumar Basu, D.P. Pattanayak, Ashok Sen, Pabitra Sarkar, B.R.K. Reddy, late K. Nagamma Reddy, B. N. Patnaik and Probal Dasgupta. I am also indebted to my students as well as friends: Biswajit Biswas, Manas Kundu, Debasmita Ghosh and Isita De for helping me to prepare the manuscript of this book. Akhar and Rupa had provided me “quality time” (?) for writing such a peculiar “bad” text book that does not help readers to pass mundane exams. However, usual disclaimers apply. iii  CHAPTER-I ENTRY POINT: HUMAN DISCIPLINES I am going to write a textbook on linguistics. I am scared—a bit tensed as there are many problematic questions haunting me. Would my future work colonize the readers by invoking injunctions? Or, it might invoke many responses, many surplus meanings--future readers without throwing away the text would kill the author, who is imposing dictums by putting authoritarian imperatives. Am I going to write a disposable conspicuously commoditized text that would fail to generate multiple interpretations? Am I ready to delete myself from the text to write a neutral text without self-reflexivity? That would be pretentious as no author could hide him/herself in the texts. After thinking all these, I thought that I should try my best to write an open text without any closure. I thought that before taking entry into linguistics, our entry point must be the foundational questions of a human science. Thus we are inaugurating an open text on linguistics. An open text does not invoke injunctions— there is no imperative imposed upon the readers. This text will be successful if this open text may disseminate surplus meanings in responses to be given by the readers by closing the closure of single authoritarian meaning. We are trying to understand linguistics as a discipline by looking into the whole gamut of academic disciplines—their genesis, exodus, methods and activities ….. 1.1. What is academic “Discipline” in Human Science in reference to linguistics? A1: Institutionalized academic disciplines in human science are supposed to explore the ―truths‖ of the human and about the human by deploying model-theoretic techniques for the welfare of the human beings. Linguistics is one of the human scientific disciplines that explore the ―truths‖ of human Language (henceforth L) by analyzing as well as fragmenting it in different hierarchic atomic levels by treating L as an object.  A2: Human Science is a tool to know humans (analyzed objects) by humans (analyzer subject). Human Science, a disciplinary technology, is supposed to explore ―truths‖ about human corporeal and its habitat to sustain constructed scientific basic instinct of ―will to know‖ that always leads to ―will to power‖. If the human scientist is able to know the bodies of their subjects (analyzed) by objectifying subjects‘ objectified bodies, human scientist can subjectify (making a discipline as subject of knowledge) the object, e.g. Human Speaking/Hearing Subject [henceforth S/HS] has become object in the gaze of a human scientist, particularly a linguist and that object has transformed into a ―subject‖/discipline, viz. linguistics so that the subjection of human objects in a laboratory state of human science can be possible. The birth and execution of any discipline cannot escape governmentality or subscription to the power politics and violence as human disciplines intervene into the body of the subjects, imitating Natural Science. (Nietzschean as well as Foucauldian Position). Keywords: truth (and falsehood), academic disciplines, Human Science, welfare, disciplinary technology, will to know and will to power or power/knowledge nexus, governmentality, Speaking/Hearing Subject [S/HS], subjectification, subjection, objectification 1.2. What are these subjects and object? Is it related to the question: what is the subject of knowledge? A1: There are two units involved here: ―I‖ as subject and everything excluding that ―I‖ or non-I as object. Suppose ―I‖, an S/HS or a human being or anthropos, is a subject and all excluding ―I‖ or non-I are objects. The goal of any objective and realist science is to explore formally the core/essence of an object (in case of linguistics, it is ―L‖) without any subjective bias. We, the children of enlightenment, are in the entry point of a ―scientific‖ project. Here is an object—a thing outside me. One may call it object or signified. We are assigning signifier on it. Simultaneously, we are imposing certain structure (order of things) on it. We have to know its ―true‖ structure objectively without any subjective bias. Therefore, we need analytical tools, certain formalisms to constitute a discipline like linguistics. Formalism contains scientific categories, certain taxonomies—order of things. This order of things reveals the ―true nature‖ or essence of the given object. Hidden core of the object and the deployed arbitrary signs would be an overt and known as well as an essential existence. We can now generalize an ideal 2 situation with the tool of stipulated structure. Yes, this question is related to the ―Subject of Knowledge‖ (Realist Classical Scientific as well as Structuralist position). A2: ‖I‖ is constrained by his/ her anthropocentric limits of perception, does not exactly know (though human scientists generally pretend to know) the ‗other‘‘s (e.g. ants, camels, other women or an alien form the other galaxy) perceptions regarding the same object. Therefore, any objective truth- claims on the part of scientist-―I‖ have anthropocentric limit as ―I‖ cannot escape or exclude its own subjectivity at the time of any true or false claims about external object. Even the proposition, ―Every knowledge is subjective‖ falls within the limits of human perception. Therefore, before displaying the foundational claims of any discipline, one may keep in mind the loci of context-sensitive ―I‖ (who is also an S/HS), who is proposing the ―truths‖ of any subject by making something as an ―object‖. e.g., an ant is seeing an object--a human being is observing an object --an ET is gazing an object. In their respective observations, there are many dimensional differences. None knows whose observation is relatively more ―true‖. Thus the answer from certain philosophical schools is: things outside me are ―unknown and unknowable‘. Every objective truth-claim suffers limits of our supposed anthropocentric subjectivity. Therefore, many contingencies must be kept, when one is claiming any ―truth‖ about a discipline. This attitude may be termed as strategic positional subjectivity, which does not allow pretentious objectivity by coercion. Citation: “We all start from „naïve realism,‟ i.e., the doctrine the things are what they seem. We think that grass is green, that stones are hard and snow is cold. But physics assures us that the greenness of grass, the hardness of stones, and coldness of snow are not the greenness, hardness and coldness that we know in our own experience, but something very different. The observer, when he (sic) seems to himself (sic) to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself (sic). Thus science seems to be at war with itself: when it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will. Naïve realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naïve realism is false. Therefore naïve realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false.” (Russell, 1940:15) Keywords: Subject of knowledge, subject-object, enlightenment, essence/ true nature, structure, signifier-signified (in relation to Realism and idealism), foundation of science, Naïve Realism. 3  1.3. Why “I” is involved here in case of discussing an objective science? Or, what to do with “I”’s understanding in case of making out a scientific subject? A1: As linguistics is an objective natural science related to biology and it seeks the holistic universal generalized truth about L, there is no question of involvement of a particular ―I‖ or egocentricism in this domain of linguistic Science, which verifies truth of L by checking the acceptability of uttered sentences by the large number of population of a concerned speech community. A2: ―I‖ has many (un)certain, though contingent, loci/standpoints/perspectives, from where s/he (subject) perceives something as a non-I or object (i.e., positional subjectivity) . One ―I‖s perception differs and defers from other fellow observers‘ (in different or same space and time) perceptions and all these representations of perceptions are legitimate possibilities to reach the supposed contingent truth. But, from the standpoint of positional subjectivity, one may not have any commitment to any of these possibilities, though they are legitimate from certain standpoints. Secondly, there may be many gaps in between ―I‖‘s perception (from a contingent locus) and understanding (this gap is discussed in another discipline called Hermeneutics). These gaps between perception and understanding may lead to many truth-rooms (cf. 1.6), which are revealed in the discourses of S/HS. Providing privilege/priority/relative importance to one representation over another is a case of fundamentalism. Thus when context-sensitive ―I‖ is proposing a proposition on any discipline, the understanding of the ―I‖ somehow is an important issue to avoid the pretensions of classical scientific objectivism. Keywords: (The debate between) Realism/objectivism and Idealism/subjectivism, positional subjectivity versus positional objectivity, egocentricism, verification and induction, hermeneutics, falsification, standpoints, perception, truth-room(s), (problems of) scientific objectivism, Hermeneutics. 1.4. If this “I” is supposed to be Speaking /Hearing Subjects (S/HS) in case of linguistics, then who are S/HS ? 4 A1: In fact, linguistics has nothing to do with the S/HS, but the production of S/HS, i.e. the L, is important in a sense that that raw material or substance as well as enormous signifiers produced by S/HS is the object of analysis of linguistics. This question is redundant one. A2: L is the behaviour of S/HS. SS initiates dialogue in a form of verbal stimulus and HS, taking cue from that stimulus, puts his/her response by becoming SS. Thus, to understand the verbal behaviour, the behaviour of S/HS is to be focused in linguistics and is to be controlled by means of operant conditioning. There is no separate existence of metaphysical entity like ―mind‖ as such and all humans are learning L from the outside world. (Behaviourist interpretation of L as behaviour). A3: Before going to open a file on linguistics, a science of L, it is necessary to understand the universal act of human species, anthropos, homo eloquens, who is creating and comprehending infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of word with the help of his/her genetic endowment, innate capacity, physical organ, which is not possessed by other non- humans. The ideal speaker-hearer are exchanging, creating, comprehending infinite sets of sentences and the goal of the linguistics is to understand this formal structure of the human cognition (i.e. a part of human corporeal) by analyzing sentences. This universal act of linguistic creation and comprehension is a unique species character of homo sapiens. The ideal speaker-hearer are referred here as S/HS. Behaviourism does not tell us about this freedom of innate L faculty instead it offers outside control of L by means of operant conditioning. A4: S/HS is the centre Iumineux de Ia theorie‘ of linguistics, the supposed science of L. A1 is emphasizing on the (a) labourious job of gathering substantive corpus or arbitrary signs of L; (b) analysis of that corpus with a view to built a naïve ―law‖ of arbitrariness. A2 confines itself within the black-box of empirical behaviourism and ignores the human potentiality of creating and comprehending infinite sets of sentences. A3 by negating behaviourism is focusing on the holistic universal species character. A3 is also emphasizing on the inbuilt formal bio-scheme for creating L without considering the individual history of S/HS as it is deeply influenced by the Rationalist tradition of philosophy. A1 does not raise any epistemological question and depends on preliminary inductivism and A3 ignores the locus of S/HS to form a general theory. The possible option is not the abstract objectivism 5  (logico-mathematical analysis of L) of A3 or switching over not only to individualistic subjectivism (which treats L as ever-flowing stream of speech acts in which nothing remains fixed) S/HS ((Volosinov, 1973/86:52-61), but to assert and execute interaction among S/HS—the dialogue without coercion or manipulation in between SS and HS. S/HS are the persons who are deploying labour (with or without pleasure, depending on the locus and the context/pretext of speaking/hearing) for speaking or hearing. Keywords: being and Speaking /Hearing Subjects (S/HS), homo eloquens, substance or raw materials of language or arbitrary signifiers, Classical Conditioning, Operant Conditioning, stimulus-response, Behaviourism, Verbal behaviour; ideal speaker-hearer, linguistic creativity, form, genetic endowment, innate ideas; Holism, Individualism, Abstract Objectivism, Individualistic Subjectivism, labour theory of language, Dialogism or interactionism. 1.5. How does “I” or S/HS then know and understand external objects? As perceptions as well as representations are different in different persons, species and kowms, the answer on the part of some philosophical schools is that the external objects are ‗unknown and unknowable‘, however human subject sometimes is pretending to know the ―objective truth‖ or is strategically creating a contingent ―truth-room‖ to serve the pragmatic purpose for his/her day-to-day living. Philosophy differs within its own domain regarding the subject of knowledge. Realism asserts the separate existence of external objects independent of observer and on the other hand, extreme Idealism suggests that there is no independent existence of object and existence of objects depends on the subjects‘ observation. That is, to Realism, ―I‖ (subject) and ―non-I‖ (object) are separable entities and for Idealism, there is no separate entity of non-I without being observed by the ―I‖. This book takes a separate position in this debate. It insists on the positional strategic subjectivity rather than that of positional objectivity to assert the contingent fact that the loci- time or standpoints of subjects are different and possibilities of representations are different as well. 6 Therefore, let us be metaphysical or spiritual—as there is no objective truth, let us imagine something beyond physical—the true origin. Let us search God, Ghost and Specter…. Sed contra: If physical perception fails, that does not prove the triumph of spirituality—a metaphysical presence beyond corporeal. Searching for truth is a disease. All these efforts for ―will to know‖ leads to ―will to power‖. The trajectory of knowledge is polymorphous power. Truth is a metaphor or a metonym. Let us construct our own truth-room(s)… Keywords: context-sensitivity (of perception and understanding), Limit of anthropocentric perception, Realism, Idealism, Hermeneutics. 1.6. What is truth-room? Let us start our journey to truth-rooms by hearing a song sung by Pete Seeger (1962) and written by, Malvina Reynolds – it is ―Words and Music‖-- …And the people in the houses All went to the university Where they were put in boxes And they came out all the same And there's doctors and lawyers And business executives And they're all made out of ticky tacky And they all look just the same. And they all play on the golf course And drink their martinis dry And they all have pretty children And the children go to school, And the children go to summer camp And then to the university Where they are put in boxes And they come out all the same. And the boys go into business And marry and raise a family In boxes made of ticky tacky And they all look just the same, There's a green one and a pink one And a blue one and a yellow one And they're all made out of ticky tacky And they all look just the same. 7 Here I am reiterating Nietzsche – truth-seeking is a disease – ―will to know‖ leads to ―will power‖. Even then, we have Truth Rooms (TR) and we are celebrating our truth claims if it leads to ‗foundational‘ ‗original‘ knowledge base. Though we are decorating our TRs with the pieces of our celebrated fundamental/original knowledge, we do not think that it leads to fundamentalism. My TR is true in the true sense of the term and my TR supplies fundamental knowledge and yet it is not fundamentalism! Even I am living within a scientific community and have fundamental truth-claims, yet I am not a communal! We are following, either in our day-to-day life-spaces, or in our statist-space or in our academic or aesthetic life-spaces, different TRs, knowingly or unknowingly, basics of any fundamental TR or TRs acclaiming that only my watch is running rightly. When I am branding other‘s TR as fundamentalist TR, I do not consider my TR as fundamentalist TR, though it is fundamental piece of work and I am also a fundamental as well as communal truth-seeker. Am I seeing my civilized mirror-image, when I am branding other as savage, terrorist, or fundamentalist? Following Malvina Reynolds, I want to call all these TRs as little boxes. Within this little box or TR of one vegetarian, all the animal proteins, onion and musur dal (lens esculenta) are prohibited and another vegetarian thinks s/he can consume onion and musur dal along with egg and still preserves vegetarian status according his/her world-views. In case of determining the semantic status of the term ‗vegetarian‘, are we ready to incorporate two TRs of two vegetarians, or the ‗meaning‘ of the term is to be decided positively, formally and deterministically by terminating the second vegetarian as vegetarian? Where are the entry- points of such TRs? Where lays the closure of such TRs? Or, they ―all look just the same‖? Anyway, the preservation of these different little boxes is a problem to me and I will try to understand it in reference to the foundational questions of scientific investigation in connection with Cultural Relativity hypothesis proposed by Sapir and Whorf, according to which ―the real world is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the L habits of the group‖. My little box gives me comfort, security, ease and simultaneously provides me with suffocation, insecurity, and discomfort. This claustrophobic dependence on a single TR makes me remember of a giant, Damastes or otherwise Prokrustes, who laid all human beings on his bed and then ―lop them or rack them out to make fit it.‖ Are these Little Boxes Prokrustean Bed? 8 The taxonomization/categorization of the object by a human scientist is controlled/ appropriated/ approximated by the spatio-temporal ―other‖ factors or vise versa as discourse also controls the other factors as pointed out in Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. No categorization is eternal, rather a type of contingent anthropocentric representation. Human scientists are playing with representations by imposing structure or ordinamento or order of things on the external objects . Each representation has its own TR or little box. Each little box contains a toolbox (to do something) with different utensils of its own. All the TRs have their own perceptions regarding supposed False-Room, a separate enclave beside a TR. Let us scrutinize some TRs in this regard with reference to different academic disciplines –the disciplines categorized according to the norm of academic beaurocrasy or academic administration. Let us start with Classical Physics. M. Rouget argued (cited in Hollis, 1994: 55) that scientific statements are often ―as if‖ ―true‖. Hollis following Rouget, elaborated it with ―the accepted hypothesis that the acceleration of a body dropped in a vacuum is constant g (about 32 feet per second per second on earth), implying that the distance (s) traveled after t seconds is given by the formula s=1/2 gt2. When the formula is applied to various objects dropped from various heights in the earth atmosphere, it is found to hold, more or less, in usually many but not all cases. It can therefore be stated: under a wide range of circumstances, bodies that fall in the actual atmosphere behave as if they are falling in a vacuum. In the language so common in Economics, this would be rapidly translated into: the formula assumes a vacuum. Yet it clearly does no such thing…. the formula is accepted because it works, not because we live in approximate vacuum—whatever that means. (1953, p.18)” Let us try to understand this abstraction with a popular example. Once Sunil Gavaskar commented on a particular deployment of software—Hawk eye. This special software was deployed in the Mini World Cup (2002) to predict ―Leg Before Wicket‖-decision as it shows the possible trajectory of the cricket ball (whether it hits the wicket or not). Sunil Gavaskar pointed out that the software did not count the variables like the character of soil (the pitch), the direction and speed of the wind, the height of the bowler‘s hand and his/her grip (grip is seldom overt) 9 etc. Though Hawk eye is ―ideal‖ software, it is not suitable for the ―practical‖ decision on LBW as it does not take into account such variables. Though, in classical science, we generally idealize a formula by considering ―other‖ unknown or yet to be known variables as non-existent entities (say, for example, the swinging of different pendulums in different regions of the earth.). In Cricket , we can say, without any hesitation that Shane Warne is continuing his 6.5 over. What is the status of .5 in six-balls‘ over? Even at the moment of calculating cricketers‘ career averages, this .5 preserves its status according the Cricket community‘s convention. If Wittgenstein is to be believed, mathematics is a practice, performance-- mathematics is something we do within a community, and we could just as well do it any other way. Thus mathematician‘s communal TR is also a Little Box. One could write 12+1=14 as in my apartment there is no thirteenth floor as according to that TR, the number 13 is ‖unlucky‖. Therefore, mathematics is a performance of the community. For Wittgenstein, communalism of mathematics is determined by the communities‘ convenience and necessity. Is this communalism not also true for other disciplines also? In case of Economics, I can write ―3 goats= 1 cow or ―1 apartment= 120000 Euro‖ by adding some sufficient causes. How do I put the sign ―=‖ in between two unequal things? The question is irrelevant enough within the TR of Economics-community. Questioning the equalizing effect of a dangerous supplement, a properly signed signifier called ―money‖, is prohibited within the ambit of mainstream economic activity‘s TR. I am not questioning communal fundamentalism, rather I am representing the presentations of a priori, though it is neither analytical a priori, nor the synthetic one, but something called historical a priori—a priori determined, conditioned, appropriated, approximated by the historical incidences and that a priori gets epistemic status within the ambit of a certain TR. Let us switch over, for the time being, from academic administration or Cricket-community to some problems of ordinary L, which, as alleged by the Logical Positivists, is illogical. Ok, let us try to rewrite these ―problems‖ of Bangla language without going into technical details of linguistics. The problem, we have to face, may be termed as ―one is not equal to one‖ problem or ―fuzzy one problem‖ which is according to existing mathematical system impossible. The concept of 10 this fuzzy "one" can be further illustrated in the following examples, where deterministic numeral expressions are changed to non-deterministic Determiner Phrases: 1.a) paMcTa five-classifier (definite) 1.b) goTa paMcek classifier( indef. ) five-one "more or less five " 2.a) paMcjon five-classifier (definite) 2.b) jona paMcek classifier( indef. ) five-one "more or less five " 3.a) paMckhana five-classifier 3.b) khan paMcek classifier( indef. ) five-one "more or less five " 4.a) paMc Hajar "five thousand" 4.b) Hajar paMcek thousand five-one "more or less five thousand" 5.a) paMc lakh five lacs 5.b) lakh paMcek lacs five-one "more or less five lacs" Examples like 1-5 show those deterministic expressions in (a) and non-deterministic expressions in (b). Compared to (a), examples in (b) show the fronting of classifiers with subsequent phonemic change and an addition of /ek/ ―one‖ to the specific numeral x. This one is not deterministic +-1, but this ―one‖ has a range more or less than +- 1. All these represent a psychological non-deterministic range of numbers in the cognition of Bangla speakers. The Bangla numeral expressions show the world-views of the community concerned with a special reference to their psychophysical way of looking at things (perception) 11 and ways of making order of things (understanding). Therefore, it is a hermeneutic problem that involves the relative gap between human perception and understanding in relation to their habitat. The range of +-1 is different in different persons belonging to different socio-economic classes or even it may be different in a single person in different psycho-social context. The community of Bangla speakers, one may assert following Wittgenstein, have their own way to do Mathematics. From the non-deterministic TR of ordinary L, I am returning to the problem of my discipline— linguistics. In case of linguistics, Chomsky is proposing a creative speaking subject with zero history (it will be elaborated later in this book, cf. 2.6, 2.7). Within the TR of ideal S/HS, this equality of L is a necessary one. It is true, but it is unreal as at the moment of constructing the metanarrative of ideal speaking subject, this TR does not consider the correlation between empty linguistic organism and human malleability and the childhood configuration, neurotic elements and individual biography (cf. Barthes, 1975: 49-50) —the other variables. In this situation, I am not labeling any of these TRs as fallacious and I am not negating or refuting any of these TRs. All these TRs provide us enough comfort and ease to live our life happily as well as, at the same time, manifest in suffocations. If I wish to destroy any of these TRs, it would be considered as a violence. The question is what to do now? May we play with constructs or historical a priori within a single TR? If all these TRs are ephemeral and contingent enough, how do we ensure our insurance within TR? Let me put it in this way: if I do not like one TR, let me take it as a legitimate possibility without any commitment and on the other hand, if I feel comfort in one of these TRs, let me commit myself to that particular TR. I am not rejecting any TR, rather I am accepting it as a legitimate possibility but without any commitment. Or, another possibility is to swing from one TR to another TR. This type of positional subjective attitude leads to the politics of tolerance. I am not projecting ―other‖ as fundamentalist, terrorist or savage by keeping aside my own fundamentalism. Moreover, I do not want to hide violent market fundamentalism by foregrounding the violence of religious fundamentalism. Both of these two are violent and the agenda of proposing such (ill)ogics of TR is to reiterate the logic of ahimsa, non-violence, as proposed by the Jaina Theorists. And this is the Anekantavada of the Jaina Philosophers. 12 Keywords: Construction /constructs, Truth Room(s), ordinamento or order of things(*de-sign, de-sign-ation, de-sign-ification), historical a priori, episteme, Anekantavada, Cultural Relativity Theory (Sapir- Whorf Hypothesis), Logical positivism, metaphor, metonym, Hegemony of Science (and violence and domination), admitting/accepting a truth room as a legitimate possibility (asvikrtigrahana), committing to a truth-room (svikrtigrahana), politics of tolerance. 1.7. What are the basic methods of reasoning in Human Science? Generally in Logic, two preliminary methods of arguments are followed: Induction and Deduction. I case of induction, one can infer from particular to general ―truth‖ and in case of deduction, one can infer from general truth to particular truth. e.g., Chomsky inferred a general truth: ―All humans are capable of creating infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words.‖ From this general truth, one can infer deductively particulars like ― John, the speaker of English, capable of creating infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words.‖ And from these many particulars, one can induct the universal or general ―truth‖ about creative S/HS. Xduction (Dasgupta in Kkhubchandani, 1997) is a non-formal system of reasoning when a conclusion is drawn on the basis of unknown non-algorithmic (?) ―insights‖. In this type of reasoning the conclusion comes into the mind as a ―spark‖, which cannot be explained in neuro-biological terms so far. There are numerous examples of such reasoning that may be referred to as ―insights‖ due to lack of any technical term for it. Roger Penrose (1989: 541-7) described such experiences to show the non-algorithmic nature of human cognition. [ please note that this is a superficial representation of Induction and Deduction. Enthusiast readers may search more about this in any textbook of logic] Keywords: Induction, deduction, xduction, formalism, hypothesis 1.8. Why is the purpose of Science related to violence? A1: Science is a persuasion of pure knowledge. If the practice of science would lead to violent activity, the science, the pure epistemology, is not to be blamed for its distortion. Water can be simultaneously life-saving and life-terminating element. A2: Scientific enterprise, after the Manhattan project, was perceived as the reason of state and mega-technology has been introduced in the name of science. This enterprise, mainly controlled 13 by professionals, technocrats (not by academicians), who are doing defense-oriented jobs without being aware of environmental disaster. The deployment of scientific tools to the bodies of the subjects leads to the bio-politics as well as governmentality and thus science emerges as a disciplinary technology that controls the behaviour of the subjects. ―Science‖ in the guise of mega-technology, in the stipulated sense of the term, produces only conspicuous commodities, instigates tyranny (of war-industry) and creates hegemonizing effect that, in turn creates mass- fetishism for science in the stipulated sense of the term. The global truth-claims of science that mercilessly marginalize ―other‖ world-views or TRs, also generates new religiosity in the domain of secular state. All these entail the violent nature of contemporary scientific enterprise. (for elaborate discussion please see Nandy, 1988) According to the ―modern‖ scientific method, formal inquiry begins when the human subject is dead. Though in the modern system of pathological investigation, human subject in a laboratory is thoroughly and formally investigated to understand the distortion of the body, the modern lab- system has metamorphosed the human as a de-human by objectifying ―it." This technological control over the body under the purview of modern science creates a ―Ulysses Syndrome‖, in which the human subject like Ulysses does not return to the position, after pathological test, from where s/he has started. In this connection, I cannot help but quote Lakatos: “Nobody will doubt that some problems of Mathematical theory can only be approached after it has been formalized, just as some problems about human beings (say concerning their anatomy) can only be approached after their death. But few will infer from this that human beings are „suitable for scientific investigation‟ only when they are presented in „dead‟ form, and that biological investigations are confined in consequence to the discussion on dead human beings-- although, I should not be surprised if some enthusiastic pupil of Vesalius in those glorious days of early anatomy, when the powerful new method of dissection emerged, had identified biology with the analysis of dead bodies.” (1976:3) We the pupils of Vesalius, as modern scientists follow the same footsteps by analyzing formally as well as metamathematically the human being by treating them as dead bodies. When scientists are creating ―corpse‖ at the moment of analysis, is it not an instance of violence? Keywords: Anatomo-biopolitics, discipline and punish, stakes of formalism, objectification, subjection, subjectification, power /knowledge, governmentality, hegemony and domination. 14  1.9. How do S/HS deploy signifier to an external object or signified? S/HS deploy names to external objects or feelings —objects are signified by them; objects are endowed with the sign. These names are signifiers, made out of raw materials of human utterances. What is important to note here is that the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary, floating, provisional, elusive and shifting. The deployment of signifiers depends on the shared linguistic knowledge of a particular kowm/ community and their social pact for calling something as ―something‖. Thus the substantive existence of signifiers is a social fact. One, an isolated person, may also develop a private provisional signifiers to de-sign-ate other objects. Example: For the object or signified , ―water‖, S/HS may deploy different signifiers in different Ls: aqua, water, pani, jOl etc. Whatever may be the signifiers, the external object, i.e. the signified would be remain uncontaminated by the signifiers. However, later on we shall see that this de-sign-ated object is also a sign—a privileged sign—a representation. The being is entering into the theatrical world of signs—the symbolic order. The others are acting as mirror of the being ―I‖, who, as a sign, is experiencing the ―real‖ as symbolized or reflected in the mirror of the other. Keywords: signifier, signified or object, referent, concept, arbitrariness, representation(s). 1.10. Is it necessary to know such “Philosophy of Science” before exploring a subject like linguistics? A1: It is not at all important to know the basics of Philosophy, when anyone is doing scientific and technical analysis of a specialized discipline, e.g., anyone can merrily adopt recent Chomskian model for syntactic analysis without being bothered about Cartesian inheritance of Chomsky. The technique to do something is important rather than sparing time in reading Philosophy. One can pursue linguistics without knowing the details of Cartesian Philosophy. Citations: ―In fact, it is perfectly possible to accept part or whole of Chomsky‘s linguistics, without accepting his Philosophy of Mind (i.e. innateness hypothesis). In spite of Chomsky‘s own pronouncement to the contrary, the two are separable, , and raise distinct issues.― (Radford, 1981: 28) 15  ―[t]hey (innateness hypothesis and Philosophy of Mind) are not wholly relevant to L theory and practice. It is perfectly possible to be a follower of TG and still reject mentalism, innateness or universals, or alternatively, to be a structuralist and accept them. (Palmer,1983: 194) Dear readers, be patient, there are some new terms (TG, innateness, Cartesian linguistics, structralist etc….) I will try to unfold all them in the due course. By dropping these terms without explaining them, I am deferring my future project of writing this book…However, what is important here to note is that one can pursue a career in linguistics by just knowing the technical details of a given market-friendly model and without being aware of the philosophy of science. A2: This is a time, when technology is so vaccinated that the ―viruses‖ of Philosophy cannot penetrate in that domain. This proliferation of eco-enemy mega-technological gimmicks bars philosophy to enter into the domain of techno-centric institutionalized science. If a member of technical intelligentsia knows the piecemeal ―model‖ to do something by fitting new substantive data into it without raising any epistemological questions/ problems or solutions to the problem and without any commitment to the major ―other‖, who are serving that member of intelligentsia for his/her sustenance by providing surplus labour, s/he can be well accepted as a celebrated person in the domain of institutionalized ―publish or perish‖- imperative. Even we now bear the traces of philosophy in the acronyms like Ph. D. or M.Phil within the institutionalized science, though the meanings of these ―Ph.‖ or ―Phil‖ are in oblivion and neutralized. This is a warning situation in the present academia and therefore, Philosophy of Science must be introduced for the sake of addressing foundational/ anti- foundational as well as praxiological questions of a given discipline. Keywords: Disciplines, inter-disciplines, convergence of science(s). Foundation/anti-foundation, basic methods of science/ methodology, Philosophy (as a key subject). 1.11. If one must have to know “philosophy of science”, may we have also to understand the “source” of knowledge before entering into linguistics? Apparently, there are two schools of thoughts for attesting source of knowledge. Empiricism asserts that the human source of knowledge is always external. We are gaining knowledge from the outside through our five sense organs just like ants. Mind is nothing but a 16 ―tabula rasa‖, a clean slate. The imprints of the outer world are inscribed in the clean slate through five sense organs. Experience is the only source of knowledge. Locke, Berkley and Hume are the three exponents of Empiricism. Behaviourists in psychology and linguistics are the follower of Empiricism. Rationalism proposes different TR. The followers of Rationalism think that the source of knowledge is innate ideas—the inbuilt capacity of every human being. Just like a spider we are constructing our web from inside. There is something—a Scheme of all schemes—within me that categorizes outside world. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz are the three propagators of Rationalism. Noam Chomsky is the staunch follower of Rationalism. A fusion of these two different schools was made possible by Emmanuel Kant. According to his critical theory, sources of knowledge are coming from the both inside and outside. It is just like bees—building hives with inside and outside input-outputs. Without sense perception, human innate scheme is blind and without the innate scheme the categorization of the sense data is impossible. Keywords: Empiricism (Locke, Berkley, Hume), Rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz) and Criticism (Kant) 17  CHAPTER-II LANGUAGE: THE OBJECT OF STUDY 2.1. What is substance and form? Take for instance, the game of chess. The pieces of chess may be made from different raw materials. Whatever may be the character of the raw materials-- it may be made out of ivory, clay, wood or plastic, the rule of the game is not disrupted and two players can continue the game if they have shared knowledge about the rule. We can play chess formally even if the substantive raw materials have been changed. In case of L, the raw materials, arbitrary provisional signifiers are epi-phenomenal substance and they vary from one L to another, however the rule of the game, which has a formal psycho-physiological presence within the corporeal of the S/HS, is supposed to be ―universal‖, by which we are playing the L game by using different substances/raw materials. Diachronic study of substances, as it has been done in the name of historical linguistics or Comparative Philology leads to nowhere as L is basically a form, not the epiphenomenal substance. (Cf. 6.4) Keywords: substance and form, synchrony and diachrony, signifier and signified. 2.2. What is language, the “object” of study of linguistics? A1: The word ―language‖ (L) is derived from the Latin word ―lingua‖, i.e. ―tongue‖. If anyone depends to follow authentic meaning-theory and the standpoints of Comparative Philology, that is enough to define L. Sed Contra: Considering one original or authentic over another leads to value loaded metaphyisics. Such etymological intervention into the body of the word with philological tools proves nothing except the exploration of distant memory the past meaning. That may be helpful for linguistic paleontological research but not for the purpose of definition of L. Searching authenticity of meaning, in this case, is extreme essentialism and also a metaphysical belief that leads to a notion that considers the first meaning is ―original‖ and ―other‖ meanings are inauthentic. (Cf. 6.4) A2: L is a substitute response (r) of the initial hearer to the substitute stimulus (s) of the initial speaker. Initial speaker uttered, ―Put off the Light‖. She herself can perform it (as Response or R to her need), but for some reasons, she is ordering or requesting it to another person and thus she is substituting her R in a form of utterance, which goes to the ears of the hear as s. To this ―another person‖, the hearer, this utterance acts as a verbal stimulus (s) to perform something. Another person or hearer then performs the act after saying or putting r, ― Yes, madam, I am switching off the light.‖ –this is the supplementary verbal r that precedes the act of switching off the light (R). The situation can be written as follows: S__s___r__R The supplementary s—r within the block represents verbal behaviour or L that can be learned by the way of conditioning and can be controlled by the operant conditioning. Thus to the empiricist cum behaviourist, L is a behaviour that is controlled by external stimulus. A3: When anyone is talking about something called L, one must keep in mind that what sort of Ls s/he is talking about: is it Externalized Language (EL) or Internalized Language (IL)? On the one hand, L is a bundle of arbitrary substantive signifiers, by means of which external objects or feelings are expressed; on the other hand, L is a par of cognitive domain or genetic endowment by means of which any human being can create infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of signifiers by using the innate ―physical organ‖ Language Acquisition Device or LAD. The freedom of L spoken by the creative S/HS is missing in the behaviourism. Chomskian innateness hypothesis, by negating behaviourist model of L acquisition, asserts the creative recursive characteristics of human cognition following Cartesian Rationalism. Thus Chomskian proposal offers ―scientific‖ definition of linguistic creativity and it also creates the foundation of ―scientific‖ biolinguistics. Sed contra: Chomsky defined L by showing human ―mind‖ without being contaminated by the outside sociality. When I am analyzing L as created by mind/brain, I am not considering the ―other‖ variables coming from the outside, which are constraining the production/creation of infinite sets of sentences by the S/HS. (Cf. 2.6 and 2.7) Keywords: Language as a form or biological fact, Language as a substance and social fact, Behaviourism and Empiricism, Cartesianism and Rationalism, innateness hypothesis, genetic endowment and Biolinguistics, Language Acquisition device or LAD (“physical organ”), Linguistic creativity, recursive property of language. 19  2.3. What are Externalized Language (EL) and Internalized Language (IL)? EL contains the substantive arbitrary conventional and provisional sign of L—it is a ―social fact‖ or convention. EL acts as an input to the innate scheme of human mind; on the other hand, IL is formal algorithmic site of human brain and it is the biological competence of human being, who can create infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words. On the basis of all the previous discussion in A3 of 2.2, one can differentiate between IL and EL in the following manner: EXTERNALIZED INTERNALIZED LANGUAGE LANGUAGE Substantive, arbitrary, Rule-governed formal system of provisional, shifting, human cognitive domain heterogeneous signs Social fact based on Innate capacity (as it is found in Cartesian conventional pact Rationalism), Psycho-physiological or neuro- biological fact, genetic endowment Particular signifiers Universal feature endowed with definite inbuilt algorithms, that constitutes the notion of Universal Grammar (UG) Performance Competence Parole Langue Readers may please note that the Saussurian concept of Langue and Parole is anachronistically represented and reinterpreted here. Historically speaking, Saussure did have a paradox in considering Langue simultaneously as a “social fact” and as a “psycho- physiological fact and he never thought about the rule-governed recursive phenomenon (in the Chomskian sense of the term) of Langue. However, I shall take a cue from this paradox to build up the notion of Psi-Properties as to be depicted in 2.6 and 2.7. Keywords: Internalized Language (IL), Competence, langue, recursive property of rule-governed language, psycho-neurolological fact, Cartesian Mind, universalism, analytic and synthetic a 20  priori . Externalized Language(EL), performance, parole, arbitrariness of signs, substance, social fact. . 2.4. What is the structure of language? L can be fragmented into different hierarchic atomic levels. All the components or units of L constitute the ―structure‖ of L. The levels of linguistic analysis reveals the ―structure‖ of L in the modular forms of phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, phrase, sentence, sememe, pragmeme, discourse, *silenceme. Keywords: Levels of linguistic analysis, phone, phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, phrase, sentence, sememe, pragmeme, discourse, *silenceme. 2.5. What is the function of language? Let us take an analogy from human-physiology—consider the ―heart‖. A heart has a certain structure—we can dissect ―heart‖ in the different structural levels; on the other hand, one may ask: ―what is the function of the heart?‖ Obviously enough, heart is the pumping station of blood—thus, the function of the heart is to circulate blood in the human body. In case of human L, if the structure of L is constituted by the descriptive levels of linguistic analysis, the function of L is to communicate with one another. If the function of L is communication, what are attributes of such function? This question was addressed and discussed by the Prague school of structural linguistics and thus known as the propagator of Functional School in linguistics. Keywords: Structure and function, communication, emotive function of language. 2.6. Is it possible to block the development of language by deploying external force? Now I wish to set these S/HS in the social world of behavioural manipulation following Chomsky’s own discourse to show some cleavages within Cartesian Chomsky’s own pronouncement. The following citation from Chomsky is somehow isotopic in relation to his dominant discourse or metanarrative on the creative speaking subject. Let us mount from this comment: 21  "Of course one can design a restricted environment in which such control and such patterns…can be demonstrated, but there is no reason to suppose that any more is learned about the range of human potentialities by such methods than would be learned by observing humans in prison or an army- or in many a schoolroom." (1972:114, emphasis added) Of course one could not learn the range of human potentialities in the restricted environments, but the problem is: how to avoid such restricted environments like the classroom, prison or army? The design of all these pervading institutions and their disciplinary technology had already been showed with celebration by one of the main exponents of Behaviourism, B. F. Skinner in his novel, ―Walden Two‖. Chomsky justifiably negated and refuted behaviourism but that does not entail that in the real world there is no such behavioural manipulation in the world of all-pervading prison. Then, the problem is: if behavioural manipulation continues, physical organ like LAD and linguistic creativity in general cannot escape wounds, scar or inactivity. To elaborate, let us look at the Diagram-1 as given in Saussure’s posthumous book. Let us first interpret these two S/HS following Chomsky. According to Chomsky, these two ideal speaker-hearers are engaged here in creating and comprehending infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words. Chomsky told us that there is a ―physical organ‖ responsible for this creative activity, i.e. LAD. But, the crucial question is: where is the locus standi of these two MEN? I am ceased to be an introspective spectator of such competence of speaker-hearer as I and they: both are under the control of outside politico- sociality, that is my body as well as S/HS’s bodies are subservient to the dominant outside. Diagram-2 (a drawing by Alan E. Cober, cf. Atkinson et al. 1953:200) shows the creator of Skinnerian black box is himself within the black box full of uneasiness and discomfort. This is not a ―normal" position with enough space to stretch or be in an in an erect position. The spinal cord has bent more than can be tolerated. This abnormality of positioning in a space of stimulus-response shows the defeat of the physique. This delimiting of physique bars the subject from participating in an intersubjective discourse, free from manipulation. Thus Saussure’s plan via Chomsky as depicted in Diagram-1 is defeated by the behavioural project of closing the universe of discourse. In the context of productive force of our technocratic society, controlled by the operant conditioning, the execution of free dialogue is a problematic issue. Let us scrutinize the related sources which jeopardize intersubjectivity. 22  1. In an intersubjective position, if the dialogue is controlled by the Dominant "other", the dialogue ends. 2. If the intersubjectivity is controlled by the dominant, repressive or coercive or ideological institutions with behavioural set up and control, (the another 'other') the dialogue ends. The existing productive forces reduce interaction as mere labour and reified and alienated existence of human subject's essential character (Dasein) is veiled by the problems of this inauthentic existence creates an alienation from the supposed authentic human beings, who can create an infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words. Thus, there is a divide--a divide between the essential human being and the inauthentic human existence. From this phenomenological perspective, the free labour of creating infinite sets of sentences is absent from the speaking subject as the non-ideal speaker-hearer speaks and hear in alienation due to the pre-established linguistic functions controlled by stimulus- response. That is, the S/HSs are within the black box of behaviourist management, which negates the ecstasy of creation. These speaker-hearers do not speak for themselves, but they speak for the dominant other. The other controls them by means of state apparatus or dispotif or manipulates them by deploying behavioural management. This institutional pressure blocks the physical organ for linguistic creativity and without wiping off this pressure, a hard-core scientist could not have the opportunity to understand the structure of human mind in a ―raw state‖ via linguistic data. In the behavioural universe, the word becomes cliché and cliché governs the speech and writing. Discourse is deprived of the mediations, which are the stages of the process of cognition and cognitive evaluation. L is telescoped, condensed and abridged (Marcuse,1964). Intersubjectivity has become authoritatively ritualized by repetitive use of phatic commune, stereotypes and clichés or encritic L (Barthes, 1975). These all are the result of technological rationality translated in social behaviour, which is a result of technological control and manipulation of the docile body of the S/Hs. DIAGRAM-1: Two male-speaker-hearer as represented in Saussure (1915) 23  DIAGRAM-2: Skinner himself captivated in his Black Box Courtesy: Hilgard et al. 1953 Keywords: Closing of the universe of the discourse, exclusion, authoritarian ritualization of language, phatic commune, encritic language, clichés, stereotypes. 2.7. a. From where does the ideal S/HSs speak? Where is the locus of ideal speaking subject? 24  b. What is about the history (childhood configuration, neurotic elements) of such ideal speaking subject? c. Does the outside sociality influence in formation of inside (physical organ, LAD)? d. What happens to transcendental ego (as postulated in Cartesian linguistics) or the competence of creating infinite sets of sentences, when S/HSs are subjected to the outside sociality (threat, violence etc.)? When Socrates was murdered, the power of dialogue was revealed. The forced death of Socrates does not entail the forced death of dialogue but proves the celebration of dialogue. From the perspective of authority, dialogue is something poisonous and the initiator of dialogue can be terminated by the remedy of poison only. Here comes pharmacon—poison as well as nectar….. There is creation of infinite sets of sentences as well as there is no creation of infinite sets of sentences. You know, this statement violates scientific “law of excluded middle”. All these questions are not answered in the Chomskian linguistics and all these questions are self-evident as answers are lying within the questions. ―Really‖ speaking, ―ideal speaker and hearer‖ do not exist in the world of threat and violence or in the limited world of behavioural manipulation. All these questions contradict Chomsky’s metanarrative of transcendental Mind. However, this ahistorical ideal subject escapes real. As sometimes in Classical Physics, we presume such vacuum (bodies fall in the ―actual‖ atmosphere behave as if they are falling in a vacuum; falling bodies travels 32 feet per seconds everywhere in the third planet) to continue our agenda for model-theoretic approach. Chomsky’s hypothesis also does not able to avoid such scienticism—his speaking subject stands in a vacuum. Chomsky’s formula works (as that classical physical formula works) but the social constraints are in oblivion. Syntacticians do not consider individual biography, childhood configuration, neurotic or psychotic elements of the S/HS at the moment of deploying syntactic tools to gauge the anatomo-clinical map of the cognitive domain. To answer these questions, I am switching over to the construct of ―psyche‖ (as it is posited in psychoanalysis) from the historical a priori of ―mind‖ (as represented in cognitive psychology) and I am emphasizing on the society-psyche interface--the correlation between linguistic organism and human malleability. The main focus of my argument is: 25 the ―mind‖, as it is constructed in Chomskian linguistics, cannot escape internalization of the outside. The alchemy of inside and outside is crucial at the moment of constructing creative S/HS. The LAD, the constructed inside, may or may not be disturbed by the outside sociality. However, Chomsky did not bother to consider outside at the moment of constructing and representing ideal creative inside. If anyone tries to find the locus standi of such ideal speaker-hearer (Diagram-1) in the behavioural manipulative world, s/he may find that subjection of S/HS’s bodies are under the control of dispotifs. The LAD, a physical organ cannot be imagined without accommodating a social interpretation of psyche, and that is missing in the formalization of ―natural‖ essence of L as such. According to this proposed interpretation, L of S/HS, being contaminated by the outside sociality or unweilt, is not something transcendental or something outside the social and it is equally viable to psycho-social properties, which I wish to abbreviate as (psi)-P. These psi-P reasserts that the being is always in the being-in-the-(social)world as well as being-for-others. Let me formulate these two positions, Chomsky’s position vis a vis my position : Chomsky: Context free ideal creative speaking subject with zero History Sed contra: Context-sensitive creative speaking corporeal with History (The term creative[in the Chomskyan sense of the term]is kept under erasure because creativity is simultaneously a presence as well as an absence) That is, linguistic creativity may or may not be crippled by the outside sociality as mental/biological linguistic algorithm cannot stand-alone as it is also controlled by the social rules. Universal Grammar is a grandnarrative that is talking about only the positive equality of all human beings, the very concept of which is engendered from the enlightenment-project. The problem is that if we are not talking about this equality, it will be rather difficult to fight all around inequality, which is just an epiphenomenon—a politico-administrative or socio- economic construct. However, I do not find any way except to take recourse to the path of ―bhedabheda‖—a much discussed phenomenon in the Indian Philosophy—it is at a time identity (abheda) and difference(bheda)—positive equality as well as negative equality. Creative speaking subject is there—out there—but with constraints. It is at a time syad asti (somehow it is) and syad nasti (somehow it is not) and syad avyakvyam (somehow it is indeterminate). The S/HSs’ linguistic creativity may or may not be crippled by the outside 26 sociality. Despite the fact of threat and violence, one can escape or bypass the threat on the supposed LAD. Keywords: The construction of Mind and Psyche as historical a priori, genotext and phenotext (Julia Kristeva), *psi-properties, linguistic creativity, *crippled creativity, anekantavada(theory of many possible perspectives), vedaveda (identity in difference), (violation of) law of excluded middle), Grand/meta- narrative, Cartesian linguistics, Phenomenological reduction, violence of reductionism, Psychoanalysis, Cognitive Science. 2.8. What is Semanalysis? The proposed hypothesis of the psi-P can be subscribed by Kristeva's semanalysis, where the production a static subject through and in L is problematized. At the one hand, L confirms the conscious rules, algorithms, law of grammar, significant structure, accepted meaningfulness etc. and on the other hand, L is ―repressed insignificant drive-governed unconscious sound continuum‖ that disrupts and undermines the rule-governed phenomenon. Kristeva termed first one as symbolic order and second one as semiotic order (which is almost similar to Lacanian concept of imaginary order); the first order, in the social conscious space renovates L, as produced by constructed transcendental ego or Cartesian mind of stable/static S/HS as a master of system by repressing the semiotic order. Kristeva was moving away from the notion of stable subject with transcendental ego as the master of system and she introduced the notion of unstable subject who is disrupted by the symbolic order of L or institutional order, splitting out of the continuum of semiotic chora. In between this splitting or dividing points of semiotic order and symbolic order, there is a thetic or static or structuring stage of L. For Kristeva, handling only such thetic structuring period of the S/HS by deploying analytical grammatical procedures that only handles the phenotext (rule-governed phenomenon) is inadequate. Kristeva encompassed this lack in her proposed semanalysis, where she dealt with L as a both drive-governed fact and something as repressed genotext. Thus Kristeva opened up an arena that is not confined to the stable ―ideal speaker-hearer‖ as a Master of the system, but she proposed the presence of genotext (deviations) within the phenotext—inside is outside and outside is inside. This is the juncture, where one can talk about the possibility of psi-P as a category. 27 The whole scenario can be ―structured‖ like this: Symbolic Order Real Order Imaginary order Lacan’s Psychoanalysis Lacan’s Psychoanalysis Lacan’s Psychoanalysis Subject’s body as reflected in Human subject cannot Identity of signifier ―I‖ or the mirror. The reflection experience the ―real‖ except subject’s I-ness as leads to symbolization. This as it is constructed in and by (miss)recognized in the presupposed order is given by symbolization or signification. mirror. The S/HS have got the the other to the subject. Here Mirror and the body of ―Identity‖, meaning and Subject’s EL is formed by this the subject stand face to face. presence for itself from the primary repression. signifiers ascribed by the other. Kristeva’s Semiology Kristeva’s Semiology Kristeva’s Semiology Law under which L operates, Real cannot be felt without Disruptive elements present L obeys the rule, grammar, being symbolized. within the signifying process. social codes, structure, Repressed non-linguistic meaningfulness, sounds, moments of acceptability, significance etc. meaninglessness, silence etc. Phenotext is the part of ―the Genotext: deviations, which signifying system as it form a relative and shifting presents itself to trajectory not restricted to two phenomenological intuition as poles of intersubjectivity of a phenotext; describable in S/HS. ―Within this signifying terms of structure, or of process one might see the competence/performance.‖ release and subsequent articulation of the drives as constrained by the social code yet not reducible to the L system as a genotext.” Genotext is within phenotext and vise versa—inside is outside and outside in. It is a paradox—an aporia. Psi-properties are operating here. Unconscious is (un)structured like L. Keywords: genotext and phenotext, real-imaginary(or semiotic)-symbolic order, Semanalysis, Semiology, psychoanalysis, conscious, unconscious. 28  2.9. What are the differences between speaking and writing? A1: Signifiers are deployed to signifieds in the act of speaking. When these signifiers are represented in the second order of representation as a copy of speaking, that second copy/representation is considered as writing, i.e., writing is (second order) signifiers of signifiers (first order speaking). Thus, face to face speaking is relatively more important to the cultural convention of writing, which is a supplement for speaking—a more natural thing than cultural habit of writing. The order of signifiers may be compared with the Plato’s imagined scheme of the cave. In course of understanding the Reality, Plato designed a cave, which has an entrance towards the light. The insiders—all human beings are chained in a way that they can face only the inside wall of the cave and do not have the opportunity to see the light behind them. In between the captive insiders and the entrance of the cave, there is a fire and in front of that fire and behind the prisoners is a raised way or a screen-like low wall. Relatively privileged ―Men‖ are passing through this raised wall with statutes and figures of other objects . Thus the ―men‖ (sic) in captivity do have only opportunity to see the shadows of themselves and other figures. In the Vedantic philosophy, almost same type of transcendental reality-scheme is also found. The subject, inclining to a water-pot by turning her back to the real vast sky, perceives the reflection of the real sky in the pot’s water. If s/he copies this supplement in a canvas, s/he can create a series of supplements. Original (transcendental Copy/ supplement Copy’s Copy/ objects in the supposed supplement’s Heaven) supplement, Transcendental Nature Apparent Nature Culture Raw (Apparently raw) (Cooked) ―Real‖ transcendental Statutes and figures carried shadows of statutes and objects in Plato’s cave by relatively privileged ―men‖ figures in the inside wall (sic) through the raised way. of the cave, seen by the captive subjects. ―Real‖ original sky Sky as reflected in the water Copy of the reflected sky in a container as painted in the canvas 29  (ghatakasa) (patakasa) ―Original‖ ―Real‖ Signifiers in case of speaking Signifiers of signifiers in ―Transcendental‖ case of writing signified/ object ARCHEWRITING—EVERYTHING IS WRITING—EVERYTHING IS SIGNIFIER. ―LOGOS‖ OR WORDS WERE NOT GIVEN BY GOD A2: Providing relative importance to one over another or considering one as more privileged than the other or assigning priority to transcendental signified—all of these create metaphysics of transcendental presence or logocentrism. The game of preferring certain kind of sign than the other defeats the scientific project itself by introducing metaphysics of transcendental presence as the supposed object or signified is also a sign, a representation. After all—all of them are signs—representations of signs without any signifying chains, order, hierarchy relative importance. All are representations—each representation represents itself. This attitude may reduce the valuation of privileged hierarchies. And this is the end of searching “original”, “fundamental” God, ghost, specter… We are witnessing the last scene of Michelengelo Antonioni’s film: Blow up. They are playing lawn tennis in a fortified tennis court-- but where are their rackets? Where is the ball? The real signified is missing—spectators’ gesticulation proves that they don’t think so. Keywords: Original and copy (in Plato’s Cave and in the Vedantic Philosophy), Problems of assigning relative importance to speaking/writing/archewriting, logocentrism, representation. 30  CHAPTER-III VARIATIONS AND VALUES OF LANGUAGE 3.1. What is Dialect? Elaborate the different order of things or values ascribed on the EL in a form of dialectology. Some ELs are de-sign-ated as “dialects” or “folk”/”tribal” languages on the basis of some non- linguistic factors, though, variation-phenomenon of L are merely arbitrary, substantial, and epi- phenomenal social facts. But these de-sign-ations are necessary factors for constructing the linguistic nation state under the purview of Print capitalism and linguistics as a disciplinary technology legitimates the ascriptions of values on Els. Let us find out the hidden fact behind the value-loaded academio-politics of naming of “other” externalized variations. I wish to focus on the arbitrariness of EL—the realm of signifiers and these signifiers are endowed with social values. I have to decipher the codes of complex social values ascribed to these signifiers, e.g., I wish to know the de-sign of the making of an imagined linguistic community, an imagined nation-state, which is born out of such arbitrariness. The boundary of linguistic nation state depends on the stipulated distribution of epi-phenomenal substantive arbitrary isoglosses (bundles isoglosses are attested on the basis of distribution of homogenous phoneme-morpheme-lexeme etc. in a given geographical area. The homogeneity of isoglosses determines the area of a so-called “dialect”). Some arbitrary isoglosses are considered as more valuable than “other”. The valuable isoglosses are de-sign-ated as standard L vis a vis “other” varieties, which are de-sign-ated as “dialects”, the defeated L of the captive SH/Ss, to whom the supposed “standard” arbitrary signs are transmitted through the tool “prescriptive grammar”, a packaged commodity in the context of Print Capitalism. Some points are to be posed before going to know the Standard L-dialect or centre-periphery relation in the context of nation state. A. Some ELs, on the basis of certain homogenous modular form, are within "our" nation, and some ELs are the "outsider" and are considered as inferior to that selected EL. This triggers the inclusion-exclusion of EL factor of the nation. B. Are these “insiders” homogenous complex? If not, try to homogenize them by standardizing, appropriating, codifying, grammaticalizing one variety (religious or linguistic) for the sake of monolingual nation state. Here comes the question of standardization and grammaticalization of chosen module. Inside "others" should be considered under such standard grammatical/ shastric module. C. Such standard grammatical/ shastric module is considered as classic. Searching classical heritage entails enumerated and imagined fantastic genealogy, history and a tribute to the predecessors, by whom the private property of the module is transmitted to the inheritors, the present inhabitants of the nation. Keeping in mind all these three points, let us try to understand the grand de-sign of imagined linguistic nation state in abstract notational form. One or two things must be noted before such demonstration (a) We are here talking about EL (endowed with social values), and not about IL. (b) For pragmatic reason, we are assigning “essence” to some categories presented in notational forms. In fact, the essential construction of any EL (such as Bangla or English) cannot escape the trap of metaphysical totality that subscribes politico-administrative construction of L. (c) Alphabetic notations are used here deliberately to avoid the value-loaded terms like “dialect”, “tribal” L etc. However, the notions are important rather than notations. Now, let us move to our demonstration: 1. Suppose, there is an ideal land called X. There are five linguist variations (v) existed in this X-land, viz. Nv, Sv, Wv, Ev and Mv. All of them have use value. 2. All the five vs are supposed to be derived from “single” prestigious ancient L P. (This presupposition depends on the metaphysical conjecture of “origin”/ “source”). 3. In one historical juncture, X was occupied by a Foreign Y (say its L is FV), who has a definite civilizing mission. 4. Foreign Y, a mercantile Capitalist enterprise, finds similarities of ELs with P with their ancient Foreign P or FP. This is the beginning of genealogical fantasy (cf. Question-C) instigated by nation-statist programme. Here the discipline, Comparative Philology emerged as a discipline—external colonizers are negotiating with the colonized through the similarities of L. 5. Y switches over to Industrial capitalism. Print Capitalist notion of “Nation State” is gifted to X- land. 6. Then Y tries to define the boundary of the land. X can be extended or can be squeezed. Y adopts a policy of inclusion-exclusion to “positively” define and enumerate X -land as a nation state. Who is X, and who is non-X? (Cf. A above). Who is host and who is the guest? What are the conditions for these relations? 7. Y has chosen Mv as an "authentic", "Pure" representation of P. (if Mv is not “pure” in the gaze of Y, it is to be authenticated and approximated by appropriation and codification.) 32 8. In fact, the area where MV is spoken, it is the main industrial centre. Nv, Sv, Wv, Ev are peripheralized. (Note the notational change from Mv to MV). That is, values related to extra/non-linguistic socio-economic condition are superimposed on the selection of MV, which is now valued as "Standard" L, the signs of which "other" vs are supposed to follow. (Cf. B above) Cf.- "Cf. The term "standard" was taken from the vocabulary of industrial society, where the concept of prototypical "standard tool" is used. 9. Instigated by the print capitalist imagination of communities and L-jealousy (born out of inferiority complex, as there is superior-inferior L hierarchy), Wv revolts against this metaphysical totality of MV. Some of the Wv-speakers, mainly newly educated mediators, are not happy with the status "dialect" or "defeated L". They want to withdraw themselves from the MV-affiliation. This is withdrawal syndrome that is based on the notion of copyright of imagined EL. It leads to an L movement—speakers of Wv are desirous for a new linguistic nation state. 10. Dissenters are granted the status of "L" by the administration and are excluded from the X- land. And if not granted as "L", revolution or willing subjection continues.... 11. Then MV was grammaticalized. Sv, Nv, Ev were supposed to learn MV from the tutor who fragmented the MV-standard with prescriptive rules. It is internal linguistic colonization, where MV is centre-L and Sv, Nv, Ev are marginalized periphery-L endowed with value- loaded signs like "dialect", "folk L", "patois" etc. The result of such internal linguistic colonization/ terrorialization is internal linguistic genocide. 12. Some grammatical rules are taken from P-corpus; some were from Y or FP. Thus, grammar book has become a constitution of epistemologically amalgamated rules, by which Violent internal linguistic colonization/ genocide is possible. (cf. C above) 13. However, MV is too “local” as per Y‟s FV. Inhabitants of X-land are eager to know something 'International' which is obviously Y-L or FV. 14. In this case, there should also be a tutor to teach FV along with L-managers/judges and L police. External linguistic colonization/ genocide begun at this moment. 15. The peripherialized vs are given some exonyms according to the "free will" of Y and satellite native Y-ized (civilized) elite (mimic MAN), such as, apart from 'dialect', there are 'folk L', 'tribal L', 'patois', 'cockney' etc. The L-object is evaluated according to dominant gaze. 16. Sv, Nv, Ev, Wv do not have their choice of Mother Tongue (MT). They have to learn two "other" tongues, viz. MV (that is perceived as a “ MT”) and Y-tongue. 33 (a) Though MV is in their immediate environment and though they could acquire MV following the pluriligual ethos, MV is alienated by the introduction of Grammar book by the tutor. (b) In case of Y, which is introduced as second L in the school (Ideological State Apparatus) order by the official literacy campaigners, "other" peripheralized vs also learned this Foreign Y via packaged tools. Other vs are either committing linguistic suicide or victims of linguistic genocide. 17. Though we must know the fact as Walsh or Kapil Dev do not need to know rules of Aerodynamics to swing the ball, so also no one needs to know fragmented rules and norms of grammar via prescriptive grammar book, a feeding bottle or a packaged commodity. Key-words: Dialect, “tribal” L, “folk” language, marginalization, defeated language, captive S/HS, othering, genealogical fantasy, withdrawal syndrome, hegemony and dominance (Gramsci), Dialectology, bundles of isogloss, *drain of language, Sub-altern, linguistic genocide, linguistic suicide, linguistic ecology, linguistic cannibalism. 3.2. What is Standard Language? EL, in terms of economics, has a use value and in the context of technocratic industrialized capital-incentive society, it has got exchange value. That exchange value-loaded commodity is called Standard L. Thus, when an EL-variety has got ascribed exchange value in addition to its use value, the supposed EL-variety has become standardized as well as commoditized. “Standardization” has a distinct connection with the industrialized or technocratic society, where one externalized linguistic variety is selected, appropriated, codified and approximated at the “cost” of “other” “defeated” and “captive” varieties (so-called “dialect” ) within the stipulated boundary of an imagined linguistic nation state. The term “standard (tool)” is a term used in the technocratic market economy and it is borrowed in the realm of linguistic epistemology along with other terms like, “L management”, “L development”, “L planning” etc. Standardization also invokes grammaticalization as grammar, as a school textbook, a packaged commodity or a tool for linguistic colonization, extends and transmits a particular selected standard variety by captivating “other” varieties. The process of standardization, in the context of print capitalistic nation building process, helps to create internal colonies with the imagined boundary of as captive speakers of peripheral EL-varieties or “dialects” are colonized by the “standard” variety. 34 Keywords: Centre- periphery relation, colonialism, internal colony, external colony, Linguistic Imperialism, Standardization and Capitalism, Print Capitalism, Imagined Communities, Nation State, use value and exchange value (of an EL), EL as a packaged commodity, linguistic fetishism, Linguistic terrorism. 3.3. What is sociolect? Apart from the geographical distribution of homogenous bundles of isoglosses, there are other factors that influence EL. The EL-variations according to age, sex, social group, class and professions constitutes the notion of sociolect. Another concept—the concept of “register” is also important to note in connection with sociolect. If so called “dialect” is defined as an EL-variety according to users of definite geographical area, register is EL-variations according to users‟ performances. In case of register or style of speaking, there are purposes as well as subject matter/content of speaking ( Field) and definite relationship among S/HSs (Tenor). Key-words: Sociolect, Register, Style. 3.4. What is folklanguage? There are many controversies regarding the status of „Folk languages‟ as a technical term in linguistics. It is generally referred to as a rural L, which is very antithetical to the existing standard or even local dialects. Some others define it as a rural L, not different from local dialects. Folk L is attested according to the gaze of dominant groups who speak standard L. This is the stereotypical perception of the super-ordinates, which designate “other” as a lump sum whole with essential character. Keeping the (il)legitimacy assigning values to ELs in mind, one may of course consider the mode of categorization according to that gaze. However, quite contrary to the different definitions of so-called “folk language”, which is not merely a “dialect”, we can, within the periphery of “modern” linguistics, discuss different sociolects of different sub-altern social groups as a part of our academic business. As sociolects, which have mainly emerged as a subaltern force against the so called “greater culture” out of their non-collaborative attitude towards it, are used to maintain group-identity, solidarity and self- determination these groups use a type of secret L, which may be called as “Anti-language” following Halliday (1979). The value-loaded relationship between V and vs is a synthesized umbrella notion, which gives birth to a linguistic nation state of a given society. Though v is antithetical to V, there is another 35 v (suppose av), which arises antithetically to this synthesized situation of v-V. This antithetical v is called Anti-language, which is a product of anti-society (i.e. a society, which is antithetical to the established mainstream society.) Idealized V-v relationship is opposed by the av. This av is also an L, but it is different from usual accepted norm of V-v. This av also borrows externalized linguistic features of contiguous v or Vs. There are some sects/groups in Bengal who not only oppose the established sashtriya religion, but also have developed their own solidarity and self-determination (such as Baul, Sahebdhani, Kartabhaja, Balahari etc.) by (a)maintaining secrecy, (b) by over-lexicalizing and (c)re- lexicalizing their L repertoire. All of them use different types of L, different from their consecutive so-called “dialects” as well as standard Ls. Keywords: Anti-Language (Halliday), Overlexicalization, Relexicalization, Folklore as a colonial discipline 3.5. What is Mother Tongue? Let us explore, from the perspectives of different inter-disciplines, the genesis of the historical a priori, “Mother Tongue” (MT) instigated by a sexist question, “Why is it not Father Tongue?" It at a time relates psychology of mother-child relation in specific social milieu and its implications in Psycholinguistics and History of the concept in relation to the birth of nation-state. In India, the word “mother” has been deployed in the realm of land and language and subsequently proliferated in every sphere of discourses. Is it only due to the social proximity of mother-child that gives birth to such notions? When “the name of the Father" is dominating the social sphere, and the Father‟s tongue is child‟s tongue, why the name of the dominated mother is nominated and affiliated to the objects like “land” and “language”? This discussion on the MT inaugurates four distinct issues:(a) The mother to other or breast-to-bottle switch-over [in case of L death];(b) The proliferation of (M)other-tongue Industry aided by professionals; (c) Mother-children dyad in relation to L acquisition(d) the artificial means for detaching the dyad by the introduction of feeding bottle Industry. I think, the switch over from breast to bottle has a larger implication in understanding gestalt of "mothering" in its psycho-physiological connotations or in its metaphoric senses as revealed in "mother land" and "MT". The metaphor of "breast to bottle" switch over stimulates us to look into the history of Industrialization in which the "nature" is defeated by the manufacturing of technological "culture". 36 This imaginative effort to feminize the "tongue" ends in vein as the term "MT", since the term was first used, had never meant the vernacular, but rather its contrary. The term was used by Catholic monks to designate a particular L they used, instead of Latin, when they are "speaking from the pulpit" (Illich in Patttanayak, 1981:24). That is, the "holy mother of the Church " introduced this term and it was inherited from the Christianity, thanks to the effort made by foreign missionaries in the colonial period in India. Illich (ibid) aptly pointed out that the word "MT was introduced into Sanskrit in the eighteenth century as a translation from English". It is not only a derivative technical term, born out of translation, but it was also altered as the Indian mother-cult had also an impact on this translation. The total endeavor to relate mother-child with the L-acquisition process is nothing but a fantasy as the biological mother has nothing to do with the L-object per se in a given all pervading patriarchal culture except to introduce substantial inputs to the child like “other” associates of the child. The "MT" as a metaphor is a politico-theosophical construct that, later on, has become a technical term in the discursive formation of administration and academics. Culture supplies us notion; we then try to make notion‟s notations and we neutralize that symbol by deploying different "scientific" as well as "cultural" methods. However, the symbolic order retains its symbolism. Keywords: Mother Tongue, Mother-child dyad, Child Language Acquisition, Christian inheritance of the term, “Mother Tongue”. I-ness versus my- ness. 3.6. What is Language Development? A1: “Language Development” is an apolitical scientific endeavor to enhance the “status”, “prestige” of a L through planning, management by the technocrats and bureaucrats of the developed civil society. Standardization is part of the L Development project that needs investment of capital as that standard variety is to be transmitted through print and electronic media. Thus Standard L is to be a “cheaper tool” available in the “market” and it can be advertised for sale. A2: The stipulated definition of “development”, which is quite in vague now in the context of economic globalization, had got popular coinage, when, in August 6, 1945, the then American President Harry S. Truman, gave a new dimension to the scientific achievement: “Both science and industry worked under the direction of the United States Army, which 37  achieved a unique success in managing so diverse a problem in the advancement of knowledge in an amazingly short time. It is doubtful if such another combination could be got together in the world. What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history. It was done under high pressure and without failure.” In 1962, American President John F. Kennedy in his famous speech, declared that it was only the scientific feat as manifested in mega-technology that determined the course of “development” of a concerned country instead of political rivalry. Since then technology is a key term in quantifying development and the responsibility of development has been bestowed on the shoulders of technocrats, bureaucrats or experts and professionals. Linguistics also needs professionals like Language Manager/ Judge and police to regulate and “develop” L- behavior of the S/HS. Linguistics, as a discipline taught in the ideological state apparatuses, could not avoid preaching the contents of such capital-intensive L development program. At the time of researching or teaching linguistics, something was in oblivion. Some people, who are not within the ambit of stipulated development program, living within the shadow area of dominant economic circle, can still interact with each other without contributing anything to GDP. There is no paid L tutor, there is no precious talking machine and thus there is no investment of capital, however plurilingual S/HS are interacting—their polyphonous voice is ignored, marginalized. They are the state of exception. If one can mind the jargons involved in the discourse of L development in the A1 (management, planning, status planning, correction, L development etc.),one can easily discover the discourse of an all pervading market economy—a single fundamental norm that is guided by the market principle only. Keywords: , “developed” and “underdeveloped” language, “poor” and “rich” language, “good” and “bad” language, Metaphoric transformation/ displacement of economic terms in linguistics. 3.7. What is Linguistic Human Right? Linguistic Human Right as mentioned in Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) is as follows: In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of 38  their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language. The old sovereign of 17th century might mercilessly punish those, who were demanding some sorts of right or forming a movement for legal right. However in the present context of post- industrialized-society, each and every demand of subalterns are legalized. Thus the apparent antithetical 'otherness' is at a time as well as paradoxically selved and hegemonically preserved. That is, there is hegemonic control as well as satisfaction of desire of subalterns in the form legitimized 'rights', once unimagined by the old sovereign. In fact, no buffer zone that is beyond the gaze of Panopticon remains. In the everyday space, in the everyday domain the presence of omnipotence market-sponsored minimal state is felt. Even the counter-zone of public action is within the grasp of state as state now offers the agitators each and every “right” that was once totally unimaginable for the past sovereign! Foucault (1988:145) remarked, “…and beyond all the oppressions and “alienations”, the “right” to rediscover what one is and all that one can be, this “right”…. was the political response to all these new procedures of power which did not derive, either from traditional right of sovereignty.” Keywords: United Nations, Rights, Legitimacy crisis of right, Covenant Act, private language, legal subsumption (hegemonic and coercive selving) of the antithetical other. 3.8. What is Linguistic Imperialism? When Centre EL is imposed by the investment of capital on the “other” ELs by marginalizing them and marginalized vs do not look at each other, instead they look vertically to the supposed sun, the centre, the V. This situation (concentrating on the supposed sun V as a centre) is called “Sunflower Syndrome” by some Indian linguists. This situation may be called Linguistic Imperialism. Empire V deprives colony vs either internally (e.g. Standard L vs. dialects)or externally (e.g. International L vs. native Ls) Keywords: Centre-periphery relation, Sunflower Syndrome, colonialism, Linguistic Imperialism, Print Capitalism, Imagined Communities, Nation State. 3.9. What is language movement? Under the hegemonic control of standard L within a nation state, the capital-incentive L-Industry is proliferated by the introduction of electronic as well as print capitalism with the help of 39 ideological state apparatuses. If “other” captive variety‟s S/HSs would revolt against the central EL and withdraw their affiliation from the abstract umbrella of the supposed monolingual nation state, the situation is observed as “L movement”. Keywords: Language as a private property (in the context of Capitalism), Imagined Communities, Nation State, Linguistic terrorism, Withdrawal Syndrome, speech community, kowm, tribe, ethnic group, mimicry, hegemony, collaboration. I-ness, my-ness, *linguistic entitlement. 3.10. What is *Linguistic Terrorism? When one of the „v‟s revolts against the central V within an imagined community by withdrawing themselves from the umbrella of EL, the withdrawing v‟s activities are perceived as “terror”. Despite the fact that the revolting v, which is trying to get the central V status and prestige, imitates all the distinctive features of the dominant paradigm, the desire of the revolting v is “secessionist” from the standpoint of dominant centre. The dominant V cannot tolerate their own mimicry from the inferior, which is always a disruptive performance. The V then constructs its own terrorism of L as the other to impose their own terrorism to the “other”. Thus, it is a case of double reflections, whereby terror of centre is reflected in the mirror of the „other‟ and the central terror in turn is reflected back on the centre‟s own mirror in a form of reverse mimicry. Centre is branding its own terror as terrorism of the other. Thus this is a case of mutual reflection (anyonyapratibimba), where both the parties/agencies are mirroring each other—the deprived is copying the dominant paradigm and the dominant is blaming, attacking the deprived with the weapon. In case of any L movement that demands separate linguistic state in India, this reverse mimicry is a common feature. Keywords: *Linguistic Terrorism, Mutual resemblance (anyonyopratibimba), mimicry, * reverse mimicry, State of exception. 3.11. What is bilingualism? When S/HS speaks and hears two different Els or codes with certain degree of mutual intelligibility. The situation is a case of bilingualism. The consequences of Bilingualism are as follows: (a) One L can borrow linguistic items from another. There may be extensive code mixing. (b) One can maintain her/his L and in a definite context and in another situation may shift to 40  second L. (c) S/HSs may submit to the second L by adopting it as MT. In that case, it is a linguistic suicide. The power relationship between L1 and L2 determines the non-dominant L- speakers‟ suicide. (d) L1 may converge with L2 to renovate a different L. etc. Keywords: bilingualism, borrowing, Language maintenance and shift, code switching, code mixing, convergence. 3.12. What is plurilingualism? Plurilingualism is a unique feature of South-East Asia, where a speaker uses different varieties of EL to communicate without being de-sign-ated/bothered by the Nation-statist paradigm of enumerated L. Some examples of plurilingualism are given below: D.P. Pattanayak (1981) observed, “If one draws a straight line between Kashmir and Kanyakumari (from North to South India) and marks, say, every five or ten miles, then one will find that there is no break in communication in any two consecutive points of the scale.” The communication disrupts only when the gaps are larger. However, the problem of larger gaps is excellently managed, as apart from the uninterrupted in-group communication, people innovates unique L for Wider communication (LWC) for out-group interaction. Some of these Ls are so- called “pidgins” like Nagamese, Sadari, and Halabi etc. And some are regionally marked out group L like Assamese, Tamil, Oriya, Kannada, Marathi etc., and some other are L of diffusion belt (Gujarati, Malayalam, Bangla, Punjabi, Telugu etc.) To understand this state of affairs, I wish to cite an encouraging example given by P.B. Pandit. A Gujarathi Businessman (spice- merchant) who spoke Kacchi apart from his MT and used a variation of Marathi to converse with vegetable-sellers, who had migrated from Kolaba region; he seldom read newspapers in English; he went to see Hindi films with his family; to converse with the Anglo-Indian Suburban Railway employees, he switched over to Bazaar Hindustani or a typical mixed Hindi; last of all, he uses Konkani, Gujarathi and Marathi for his own business purpose. U. N. Singh also mentioned the same type of speech habit of a Rajput in Medieval India. This Rajput spoke Harauti in his domestic environment; educated himself in Sanskrit for religious purpose; he switched over to Brajabhakha for writing poetry and went through philosophy in Prakrit. In the so-called “Sanskrit drama”, it is found that Dusmanta and Sakuntala continued their loving communication in spite of their L-difference. It is also to be noted that, in spite of at least five or six varieties, which were used in the drama, the audience still enjoyed the message of the 41 dramatic performance. In the remote village in Andhra Pradesh, adjacent to Tamilnadu, India the farmer speaks in Tamil, the landowner speaks in Telugu, and no one bothers about their language-identity. My own experience confirms the same fact in Kuppam, a hamlet of Andhra Pradesh, where the newly established Dravidian University is situated. People are carrying this plurilingual ethos without spending a single rupee. This may be referred to as the shadow economics of plurilingualism. Keywords: pluriligualism, multilingualism, convergence, horizontal interaction. 3.13. Why do we have to understand the exchange of EL in the terms of Economics, Sociology and Political Science? (Wo)man, as Aristotle once opined (Politics, 1253a, 4) is one of the living animals with an additional capacity for political existence—s/he is politikon zoon. To sustain its political existence (by terminating its living existence through biopolitics a la Foucault), state power tries to capture everything under the sky through the means of different academic disciplines of their ideological state apparatuses. Therefore, when anyone is composing meta-discourse on the discourse of academic-community , preached by the ideological state apparatus, the deployment of politics, economics or sociology are inevitable. Keywords: politikon zoon, exchange of language, interaction, communication, external control of language, Social Science. 3.14. What is natural and what is cultural in linguistics? Different communities deploy different techniques to transform “raw”-materials as “cooked” (cf. the chart given in 2.8). Any material, untouched by the human hand is considered as, “Nature” and if it is cooked, it has become “culture”. Some communities considers something as “raw” and others do not. The consideration of nature and culture depends on the types of TR a given community belong to. As for example, in some communities‟ TR, rice or some edible vegetables (before cooking) are considered as “natural” product, but they are also domesticated at a certain time of history thorough cultivation. In linguistics, Cartesian Mind is considered as “Natural”, therefore, linguistics is treated as “Natural Science” by those who are proposing bio-linguistics and the other hand, those, who consider L as a social fact, treat linguistics as a social science. 42 This construction of “mind” by the subscribers of biolinguistics, cannot escape the other influencing “social” factors and that Cartesian mind cannot be existed in a raw state. Therefore, in 2.6 and 2.7, I am inclining towards an interface of psyche and society and have introduced psi-properties. The construction of psyche in psychology, as for an example, falls in between nature and culture. However, there are problems in this definition, which proposes the binary of Nature and Culture—again it is the problem of subjectivity and objectivity. Attesting something as a “pure nature” or raw material certainly leads us to the problem of exact knowing as depicted in 1.2. The dichotomy of natural and social science are merely administrative divisions in academics that serves the pragmatic purpose of academic bureaucracy. Keywords: Nature and Culture, raw and the cooked, Essentialism, binary logic, Natural Science versus Social/Human Science. I am entitled to have an L, my L. When I am talking about my L, a category emerges—it is my-ness rather than that of I-ness. My internal linguistic entitlement (my-ness) lies in the fact of my supposed pre-determined genetic endowment. My external linguistic entitlement is like economic entitlement. It lies in the fact of familial or statist endowment. My family and my nation-state give me this pre-constructed fact of having “my” L. i am entitled to have it as an inherited private property. I am entering into the symbolic order of my family and state, in turn, they are giving the name of my L. Thus, i cannot choose “my” own L. Thus spoke Derrida, “Yes, I only have one language, yet it is not mine.” (1998:10) 43  CHAPTER-IV LEVELS OF LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS 4.1. What are the hierarchical levels of linguistic analysis? Descriptive linguistics, one of the sub-schools of Structuralism, proposed this hierarchical levels of linguistic analysis, where L is analyzed into different atomic units. L is decomposed into different rank or levels, viz. phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, phrase, sentence, sememe, pragmeme, discourse, *silenceme. De-sign-ations of all these units are briefly described below. Keywords: phone, phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, phrase, sentence, sememe, pragmeme, discourse, *silenceme. 4.2. What is phone? Phone or speech sounds are the substance produced by the humans and have three distinct characteristics: (a) speech sounds have a definite physiological formation; (b) speech sounds do have definite acoustic quality; (c) speech sounds are to be received by the hearer through the auditory nerves and are to be processed in the central nervous system. (a) constitutes the basis of Articulatory Phonetics, (b) is the domain of Acoustic Phonetics and (c) is the domain of Auditory Phonetics. Keywords: Phone/speech sounds, Physiology, Acoustics, Neurology, Phonetics (Articulatory, Acoustic and Auditory) 4.3. What is suprasegments? Segments in the L can be theoretically cut off from the string of continuous speech and the suprasegments cannot be cut off from the stream of speech. It is the melody of speech that is controlled by the speech acts or mood of the speaker. Acoustic Phonetics deals with this feature by analyzing frequency (in terms of unit ―hertz‖) and loudness (in terms of ―decibel‖). The contours of speech are defined in terms of stress (of words) and intonation (of sentences). Keywords: intonation, accent, stress, acoustics, frequency, loudness. 4.4. Is it possible to segment the suprasegment? Existing literature on gauging intonational contours in linguistics mainly depends on the three parameters (High, Mid, Low) to be determined by the trained ears of the professional phoneticians. There are software and machines for analyzing sound waves that does not provide us with a generalized picture of intonational contours with varied and specific reference points with calculated intervals. Parameters like ―High, Mid, Low‖ as reference points for intonational contours do not tell us anything as none in the community of phoneticians exactly knows the proportionate distances or intervals among such naïve parameters like high, Mid and Low. For definite segmentation of suprasegmentals, I shall take a cue from the Musicians‘ practice of taking notation of musical melodies by using auditory sense organ. Keeping in mind the differAnce between so-called normal speech and music, for the time being, I am deferring the difference between speech and music. Though the melody of music is ―heavy‖ and the melody of speaking is ―light‖, still both of them follows the same algorithm—the algorithm of do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti and do2, i.e., the ad hoc hypothesis is that, any normal speech falls within the octave that has a definite range. If the lower DO 1 is x, upper Sa DO 2 is 2x and this x to 2x octave range is considered as y, the intermediate noticeable frequency-points, as per Indian musical system, are 22. Therefore, our point of concentration is 22 points. These frequency- points of reference in a scale y that has a range of x to 2x (i.e., any points on y, say y p, satisfies the relatio x yp 2x) and the interval between two notes follows logarithmic pattern as the gap between two notes (say yp and yq ) is 2 multiplied by root 22 (please note the human love for binary-figure in the formulated representation). Thus, this hypothesis leads to an activity—i.e., making notation of ―normal‖ speech to understand the intonation pattern of speaking vis a vis musicking (this very term was introduced by Christopher Small, 1987 to emphasize the performative activity of Music). However, it does not pay any heed to something called ―(word-) stress‖--the status of word in a sentence or discourse is contested in this type of pre-lexical study (cf. 4.7 below). When, in linguistics, intonation pattern is attested by surveying a sample population, a crucial variable of that particular community is totally ignored, i.e., their cultural audio-exposure to the unintended sounds or non-discursive sonority (that is, the noises, music, and rhythm or silenceme of the habitat or the non-discursive sounds in which the particular population inhabits). It is not possible to gauge the intonation pattern of particular speech community without noticing this context-specificity of non-discursive sonority. I consider this non-discursive sonority as one of the variables (other variables are age, gender, speed of speech and speech Act) for attesting segmenting the suprasegmentals. The 22 point-scale is shown in the following with their consecutive frequencies. Please note that, for convenience, we are considering x as 240 Hz., though anyone can select any 45 frequency for their convenience. If we consider lower Sa or Do1 is 1 or 240 Hz and upper Sa or Do2 is 2 or 480 Hz, then the chart will be as follows: 1. Sa (DO) 1* 240 Hz 2. atiKomal re 1.04167 250 Hz (RE) 1.06 256 Hz 3. Komal re 1.123 266.67 Hz 4. Re 1.125 270 Hz 5. Komal Ga 1.189 284. 45 Hz. 6. Tibro Komal Ga 1.2 288 Hz 7. Ga(MI) 1.259 300 Hz 8. Tibro Ga 1.316854167 316.049 Hz. 9. Ma (FA) 1.33 320 Hz 10. extended Ma 1.388875 333.33 Hz. 11. tibro ma 1.40625 337.5 Hz. 12. tibrotOro ma 1.44 345.6 Hz. 13. pa (SOL) 1.5* 360 Hz. 14. Otikomal dha 1.5625 375 Hz. (LA) 15. Komal dha 1.59 384 Hz. 16. Dha 1.68 400 Hz. 17. Tibro dha 1.6875 405 Hz. 18. Komal ni (TI) 1.78 426.67 Hz. 19. Tibro komal ni 1.8 432 Hz. 20. Ni 1.88 450 Hz. 21. tibrotOmo ni 1.9753083 474.074 Hz. 22. Sa (DO2) 2* 480 Hz. If we can be habituated with the practice of ―writing‖ music by deploying any conventional notational system, we can also take notation of music and can convert them in different frequency-levels with specific intervals, i.e., we can segment or cut off suprasegments. Human beings will then count the contours, not the machine and the arbitrary gaps like high, mid, low will lose their relevance. Keywords: musicking, writing music, difference (cf. 4.13 below) between music and speech, algorithm of supra-segmentation. 4.5. What is phoneme? How does it differ from phone? Phoneme is a minimum meaningless unit of a specific L. Thus phonemes have a definite address and they occur with definite neighbours or environments. The analysis of phonemes are executed under ―Phonology‖. 46 Consider /k/ in Bangla L. It is a velar plosive unaspirated sound that occur word-initially, word- medially and word-finally and it is in contrast with (i.e. distinguishable from) other phonemes of that particular L. Through minimal pairs, i.e., putting two different phones in the same environment, reveals the status of particular phoneme in distinction with other phonemes of the particular L, e.g., /k/ is different from /kh/, (velar plosive aspirated) in Bangla. If we put these two in the same environment, e.g., -al, they would show the difference: /kal/ ―tomorrow‘ /khal/ ―Canal‖ Here two phonetically different sounds in the same environment create differences in meaning. Therefore those sounds are in contrast and they are two distinctive phonemes. If any phones cannot form minimal pair, they will not be treated as phonemes—they will be designated as allophones and they are said to have in complementary distribution—one allophone cannot be with another allophone‘s environment. Example: In Bangla, the phoneme /S/ (palato-alveolar fricative) has three different allophones: dental /s/ (that occurs only with the dental or alveolar sounds), retroflex /*S/ (that occurs only with the other retroflex sounds) and the palato-alveolar /S/ itself. All these three are said have in Complementary Distribution. Thus phone is the substantive element of L (as it is in Phonetics), whereas phoneme (as it is in Phonology) is the formal one. (cf. 2.1 above). Sed Contra: Distinctive feature of a phone, as proposed by Generative Phonology, is the smallest unit of the L. If two phones show similarities in all their phonetic features except one feature, that sole exception is the distinctiveness of the said phone, e.g., /p/ and /b/ are differentiated in Bangla on the basis of absence and presence of ―voice‖-ness (it is a characteristics of state of glottis). Keywords: Phonology, , smallest meaningless unit, contrast, minimal pair, contrast, complementary distribution, allophone, substance and form. 4.6. What is morpheme? Morpheme is minimum meaningful unit, e.g., in words like ―cats, dogs, horses, oxen, deer:‖, there are two morphemes: one is indicating animal‘s name and another one is plural marker. The abstract plural marker-morpheme in English has different allomorphs: /-s/ (as in cats), /-z/ (as in dogs), /-iz/ (as in horses), /-en/ (as in oxen) or zero (as in deer or sheep). All these 47 allomorphs are in complementary distribution, i.e., one cannot occur with another‘s environment. The morphemes, which can occur independently, are called free morphs (―cat‘, ―horse‖ etc.), where as the meaningful units (/-s/, /-z/, /-en/, /-iz/ or zero) which cannot occur without being tagged with free morphs are called bound morphs. The null (though grammatically meaningful) element in ―deer‖ is called as ―zero morph‖. The redundant /r/ in the lexeme ―children‖ is said to an empty morph and the morphological analysis of the said lexeme is like this: child+en as the morphological analysis of other words (like ―oxen‖) create structural pressure for this type of fragmentation. Morphemes are analyzed under the scripture, called ―Morphology‖. Post-formalists oppose this morphological analysis as S/HS does not perceive such fragmentation at the moment of speaking. (cf. 4. 18 below). Keywords: Morphology, morph, allomorph, zero morpheme, bound morpheme, free morpheme, empty morpheme, post-formalist negation of morpheme. 4.7. What is lexeme or word? Apparently there are three major definitions of words or lexemes : 1. Word (W) is subordinate to sentence (S) and thus W S; 2. Word is a minimal free form in a given sentence; 3. Word as a signifier denotes matter or the order of world. (Pada, rather than sabda, denotes padartha.) The analysis of word is being done in Lexicology and the practice of composing a lexicon is named as Lexicography. However, there are also different views. Word may be defined as ―something (visual black or any other coloured figure) in between two (white or any other colours) spaces (grounds) and the boundaries of word depend on the particular literate community‘s way of manipulating blank (or, one may call it as ―other‖ spaces, latter on we shall call it as ―silenceme‖ cf. 4.17) spaces in their printing/writing.‖ Thus, ―word‖ is a culture-specific concept, which has only visual representation. There is no such representation in the game of speaking. A literate S/HS, in his/her printing culture, has only a visual sensation of word. One may also argue against the vyaiakaranika definition-1 of ―word‖ as one of the levels of hierarchical linguistic analysis. At the level of Phonology, what is ―word‖ really in case of such pre-lexical studies? At that moment of speaking, from the subject‘s position, it is not (word-) stress, but it is rather a harmonic intonation of a discourse (that follows logarithmic pattern, cf. 48 4.4 above), which the S/Hs is expressing as a continuum without being ontologically conscious about the grammarians‘ order of things (different levels of L). Thus, as word does not exist really, the word-stress is also an absentee at the moment of speaking, though the memory of these blank spaces or silencemes may also influence the way of speaking of a literate speaker. It is meaningless to account stress by isolating a ‗word‘ (which is actually a citation form as it is lemmatized in the dictionary produced by the print capitalism.) from the speech continuum. Thus, the typological differences (as designated in the order Polysynthetic, Synthetic, Agglutinating and Analytic Ls) of L on the basis of word-morpheme ratio hold no water at all if we do not consider the literate culture-specificity of something called ―word‖. Definition-2 can be opposed by questioning the meaning of ―freedom‖ of word as a minimal free form by questioning the basic ethico-epistemology of freedom: where does lay the essential ―freedom‖ of word? What is ―freedom‖ when we are talking about word‘s freedom? When you were asking me, ―What‘re you doing?‖ I said, ―Nothing.‖ This single word, ‖nothing‖, a supposed minimal ―free‖ form in this so-called single word-sentence, is not free at all—―nothing‖ ‘s freedom was pervaded by ―other‖ non-signs, nothingness, the unspoken or something unspeakable, the non-discursive sonority or unintended sounds (cf. John Cage‘s musical compositions or in Rauschenberg and Robert Ryman‘s Minimalist paintings with almost white surfaces.). In case of definition-3, that puts word as a signifier, which is signifying something (object, signified) may be contested in the following manner: (a) word as signifying representation, represents other representative signifiers, not signified as signified or referent, thanks to the anthropocentric perceptive limit, it is always unknown and unknowable and all wor(l)ds are not subservient to ostensive definition; (b) the order of supposed signified, which is also a signifier or the order of things is always subservient to the spatio-temporal de-sign-ation and therefore, bears different representations in different space and time and thus equating pada (word as deployed in sentences) with padartha (matter) or wor(l)d-logic that pursues minimal substantive representation as the thetic (sthitalaksana) meaning of the wor(l)d cuts a sorry figure. By refuting word-atomist views (vyaiakaranika and anvitavidhanavada as well as abhihitanvayavada of Indian Philosophy), one may propose discourse-holism (not the sentence-holism as proposed by Bhatrhari) hypothesis by introducing the hypothesis of intimate attachment (atyantasamsrsta) of sound-continuum in a given discourse that also bears the marks of scattered, fragmented blank loci of silencemes. Along with this, one may also introduce the concept of culture-specific archelexeme, the strategic definition of which varies according to cultural habits of manipulating blank spaces. 49 Keywords: Ethico-politics of freedom, word, blank spaces, ontology of words, writing, lexicon, lexicography, lexicology, citation form, lemmatization, Archelexeme. 4.8. What is Sentence? According to descriptivist, the sentence is the highest ranking unit and it can be decomposed into phrase, clause, word, morpheme and phoneme. Well-formed sentence is the end result of human linguistic competence, a byproduct of LAD. Sentences should have an end but they are infinite in number in a given L. Sentence is said to be sentence, when all the speakers of the given L accept it as sentence as a string of finite words. Keywords: Syntax, sentence, string of words, well-formedness, acceptability, syntax, syntagm. 4.9. What are the different types of syntactic tools? Apart from different Chomskian models for analyzing sentences, there are many other models (names of those models are given in the keywords), which are tackling sentences in different perspectives. All these order of things are imposed on L. Though, Chomsky believes that there is a single universal mind, how can it be possible to have so many structures (as constructed by different scientific human minds in different space-times) for a single human mind? Are we regulating L from outside? For what reasons we are doing so? However, any enthusiast could merrily adopt one of these models (depending on the greater market-friendliness of one or two of the models) to pursue a career in linguistics. Keywords: Transformational Generative Grammar (and its different spatio- temporal models: Standard, Extended standard, Government Binding and Principle and Parameter models or Minimalist program), Stratificational Grammar, Systemic Grammar, Functional Grammar, Surface Syntactic Analysis. 4.10. How does a linguist distinguish natural and abnormal sentences? Or, How does linguist assign “error” in mad(wo)man’s language? Once a backpacker, after a daylong traveling, reached a small hamlet fortified by mountains, where he found all the inhabitants as visually challenged persons. In the evening, they welcome the guest in all the possible way. After enjoying a very good hospitality, the guest slept. 50 In the very next day morning, when sun was raising behind the hill, seeing this, the guest begun dancing as well as singing out of joy. All the visually challenged hosts ridiculed her by branding her as a ―mad‖ person. After the publication of M. Foucault‘s work on The Madness and Civilization (1961), this question of determining boundary between normal and abnormal L has created lots of theoretical problems. Cartesian rationality and Kantian free will were considered as the universal norm for ―mind‖ and ―will‖ in all societies in all spaces and times. Frankfurt Marxists pointed out that when Europe was talking about the ―free will‖, they were subjugating the free will of the inhabitants of Asia, Africa, Latin America and it was a paradox of the enlightenment. Freud also blurred the opposition between reason/unreason, sanity/insanity by establishing a ―rational‖ dialogue with ―insane‖ persons and he bridged those opposing binaries by his theory of repression in neurosis. However ―modern‖ linguistics denies to converse with the presumed ―insane‖. Chomskian syntax analyzes only the algorithm of presumed ―normal‖ ―well-formed‖ sentences, though we, so-called normal do not speak in the way Chomsky cited well-formed sentences. This very construction of ―natural L‖ (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences as it is evident from the citations in Chomsky‘s syntactic discourse) mercilessly marginalizes the so-called presumed non-―natural‖ L of madness or folly by treating them as a pathological curse. How do we know the differences between normal way of speaking and abnormal way of speaking? An old-fashioned physicist is interested only in VIBGYOR—he is not interested in the region beyond seven colours. Chomsky is interested only in well-formed sentences—not in the dispersion of innumerous possibilities of discourses. His striving for exact hard ―science‖ will be impossible if he would provide space for so-called irrational unacceptable sentences. In the domain of art (where infinite sets of colours are illuminating) and literature, there is a proliferation of ―deviations‖ from so-called ―normal standard‖ (as constructed by the Ideological State Apparatuses) and without such ―deviations‖ no work of art or literature or any paradigm shift is possible. Are these domains of art and literature, a domain of unreason or madness or is it un-scientific? These questions lead me to think about two men of art and literature: Binay Majumdar (a Bengali poet) and Ritwik Ghatak (a Bengali Film Maker). Both of them ―suffered‖ ―insanity‖ and underwent treatment in the Asylum. Despite this fact of confinement in the Mental Hospital and severe madness, they had developed their own ―L‖ (that deviated from the natural standard) in their respective fields of art, cinema and literature. 51 There is no full-proof method except presumptions, habits or playing with historical a priori or constructs for assigning ―error‖ in so-called mad wo/man‘s L. Keywords: Cartesian rationality and madness as historical a priori. 4.11. What is sememe? The unit of meaning is called sememe. It is an abstract atomic unit, which is analyzed in the domain of Semantics. Keywords: Semantics, meaning, thetic meaning (sthitalksana), polysemy, synonymy, hyponymy, antonymy, context-sensitive meaning of meaning, Logical Form, Metaphor, Metonym. 4.12. How do linguist analyze sememe? Comparative Philologists analyze particular lexeme‘s etymology to understand the ―authentic‖ meaning of the word. Logicists deploy formal sentential or predicate calculus to understand the meanings of the sentences. Chomskian Logical Form in the GB model followed the same logical positivist path. The belief behind this type of analysis is: ―If natural L is translated into the L of presumed logic, the ‗actual‘ meaning would reveal.‖ Influenced by the Fregean concept of compositional function, Katz-Fodorian (1963) system of binary componential analysis begun to gauge the meaning of L by following the same logical positivist path. The theory of componential analysis thinks that a word or a concept would consist of a set of features or components, e.g. the concept of ―flower‖ consists of petals (corolla), specific colours, anther, stamens, stigma, sepals (calyx), ovary, stalk etc. and it would not consist components like wings, legs, feather, tail and so on (Please note that a poet/artist may be totally ignorant about such fragments of flower, though s/he could draw different types of plural conceptual meanings from the word). Thus, componential analysis plays with the polarized binary features as it ascribes positive and negative marker to the atomic components. As all the components are not manageable, the componential analyst put ―so on‖ or etc. at the end of deterministic analysis. This ―so on‖ within the formal system sabotages the ―scientific‖ analysis of meaning. Cognitive theorists have observed that meaning as endorsed by human beings is not a set of componential features, but it is a ―prototype‖. Human beings conceive ―meaning‖ by comparing other objects with a culture-specific typical example of the particular concept or word, e.g., in a given culture, ―rose‖ is a typical instance of flower. Keeping in mind this prototypical instance, 52 people of that culture would decide the de-sign-ation of other flowers on the basis of set of features or visual images. Here enters the anti-concept of deconstructive strategy—it is not a method, it does not invoke injunctions but it is the variations within the theme of the music, by which one can find opponents’ antithetical views within the proposers’ discourse—and many surplus meanings but with constraints. Let me find out the non-contradictory contradictions as a part of my reading with pleasure. I am a fundamental original truth-seeker, yet I am not a fundamentalist. I am residing within a scientific community with definite knowledge, yet I am not a communal. I condemning black in the so-called compounds like blackmail, blacklist, black-market, black-money etc., however my ethical valuation of such black-words has stopped at the moment of facing the words like black hair, black man, black woman…At the moment of pronouncing, ―Women should have the patriarchal private property right‖, I forgot that I, as a feminist, do not believe either ―patriarchy‖ or the ―transmission of private property on the basis of blood or other type of relations.‖ Thus, I bear the traces of patriarchy, notions of private property… As all the concepts are embedded within the anti-concepts, the acts of speaking/ writing have become impossible due to many non-contradictory contradictions, decidable undecidables and undicidable decidables (aporia) facts/fictions. I have to write my text by keeping all the truths of my Ls under erasure. Keywords: Componential Analysis, Theory of Prototype, Logical Form, Semantic field, Sentential Calculus, Predicate calculus, Deconstruction, Difference, (keeping) under erasure, trace, dissemination. 4.13. What is differAnce? My writing halts at the moment of defining this anti-concept as there is no definition of differance—it is that as it is employed. The very word with its misspelling reveals the play of ―differ‖ and ―defer‖ which occur with two respective suffixes in French: ―-ence‖ and ―-ance‖. Despite the fact of two different visual representations in writing (difference and deference), the standard French pronunciation is same for the two words. By this misspelling, Derrida (1967) deferring the presumed signifying chain of two different signifiers—the difference between speech and writings, opened up an arena, where identity and difference cohabits with infinite non-deterministic meanings. This very misspelling shows the identity and difference between 53 this two and the privilege of one these supplements ends with this anti-concept. Derrida is escaping from the school, where static deterministic meanings are taught. Keywords: differ, defer, identity in difference, differance. 4.14. What is pragmeme? There are many factors behind any utterances: hidden intentions of speaking /hearing of S/HSs, shared background information (pretext) of the S/HSs, the context or settings of the speaking, the moods or speech acts involved in speaking etc. All these constitute the concept of pragmeme and it is discussed under the name ―Pragmatics‖. In addition to linguistic competence, pragmatic competence is also a necessary feature for continuing dialogues. Keywords: Pragmatics, Context, pretext, text, intention, Speech Act, Pragmatic Competence. 4.15. What is discourse? Discourse is something in between two silencemes. In discourse, there may or may not be well- formed sentences (as they are found in Chomskian citations in syntactic discourse), instead there are gaps, ellipses, (Freudian) slips, pauses, repetitions and there is also a role of unintended sounds or non-discursive sonority. Discourse or paradigmatic recurrences of conversations or monologues are analyzed by positioning the particular discourse in an (in)definite pretexts or contexts and in relation to the institution that, as a non-discursive element, controls the enunciation. Sometimes, the boundary between discursive and non-discursive formations have become blurred and both of them constitutes ―dispotif‖, as so-called discursive elements also override non-discursive formations. Keywords: Discourse Analysis, discourse, silenceme, Freudian slips, discursive formation, non- discursive formation, Dispotif. 4.16. What is proxememe? ―Let us get nearer to fire, so that we can see what we are saying‖—The Bubis of Fernando Po Proxememe is the smallest unit of the so-called non-verbal behaviour of S/HS, who are addressing each other in proximity. Apart from physical distance, power relationship (i.e., social distance) between S/HSs plays a crucial role in the formation of proxememe. Corporeal non- verbal gestures are fragmented into different small units, they are called proxememe and the science of analyzing proxememe is named as Proxemics. Proxememe, as it needs contiguity of 54 S/HSs, is meaningless without the light so that the gestures of the S/HSs can be optically visible. Thus, it is a part of lived experience of speaking. Kinesthetics, which deals with the information of the sensory system regarding the position and movements of the body parts, especially the muscle, tandon and joint sense is also related to proxemics. Proxememe may be related to the German word ―gestus‖, which is not merely a German equivalent of ―gesture‖. The term ―gestus‖ was specially used by Bertolt Brecht to mean different signs of societal network. When Brecht, in the context of theatrical performances, created any character of the play by fragmenting character‘s different shades of identities according to the different attitudes in different spaces and times, he called it as gestus. The total overt gesticulation by alienating (rather than identifying oneself with the character, s/he is portraying) him/herself from the particular character‘s mental attitude, a character can be built up by amalgamating all fragmented gestus. Gestus needs proxemics and in the robust sense of the term, gestus represents L as a whole—it is at a time inside and outside of L. Keywords: contiguity, gestus, light and optics, proxememe, Proxemics, Kinesthetics. 4.17. What is * silenceme? Silenceme is a marginal other in linguistics—an order of so-called non-signs. For these non- signs, let me introduce a term: ―silenceme‖, which is at a time a non-sign and a sign and does not have a fixed componential meaning and thus violates the law of excluded middle. Let me illustrate this anti-concept with some examples. A blank parchment with the supposed seal of Caesar, when was ―read‖ by Antony, swayed the commoners (Julius Caesar, 3.2). In Tagore‘s play, Post-office, a conspirator, out of fun, sent a blank letter to an ―illiterate‖ boy, who was expecting king‘s letter, when he was waiting for death. However, another character, sympathetic to that dying boy, altogether differently interpreted that blank letter. This blankness of the white letter, then, was not interpreted as a poisonous fun, but as a ―real‖ remedy for that boy. The act of speaking (non-silence) is constrained, appropriated, approximated by the unspeakable/ unspoken spaces—so-called blank spaces are controlling the revealed speech. These blank spaces are emitting different meanings in different situations and non-signs were endowed with the supposed sign-ness. That is the de-sign of ―silenceme‖ as it is de-sign-ated within the sign-ness. Silenceme is not absence of speaking, but it is a subjective ―perception‖ of absence of speaking. 55 There may be a strategic taxonomy of silenceme: cognitive silenceme, transcendental silenceme (as in case of seeking absolute silence and that is impossible!); Pathological silenceme (as in case of Foreclosure or Psychosis, the symbolic order is totally or partially rejected [instead of being repressed]; one‘s L Acquisition Device is not working due to the outside threat and violence); Creative silenceme ( as practiced by some Buddhists by non- internalizing the outside threat and violence.); Silenceme of conspiracy (the phrase ―conspiracy of silence‖ was often used by Marx and Engels) etc. Thus, spoke Sartre: being silent does not entail that I am refusing to speak but it is a mode of keeping on speaking (What is Literature). Now I am trying to understand the ontology as well as phenomenology of silence by deploying an Indian philosophical tool called abhava or absence. In the Nyaya-Vaiseska (henceforth NV, Indian logic) tradition, categories are distinguished based on their presence (bhava) and absence(abhava). In this tradition, both the existence and non-existence are treated as categories, which are subject to the knowledge or cognition by means of generic perception. Generally, in the English translations of the NV-literature, this category comes under the notion of negation and its subdivisions are translated as ―relational absence‖ and ―mutual absence‖ or ―difference‖ (anyonyabhava). In the context of ―silence‖, I will mainly concentrate on the ―relational absence‖ or simply absence rather than that of difference. All relations are regarded in Navyanyaya (Neo-logic) as dyadic relations between two terms: anuyogin (referend, qualificand, locus X) and pratiyogin (counterpositive, referent, qualifier, located Y). Relation (R) is always a property resident in the residence or referend. Thus, one can say X –(R-Y) where X is the locus of absence of Y where R is a relata. In case of relational absence, a qualifier qualifies a qualificand and by negating it we get an ―absence of that qualifier‖ (which is another qualifier) qualifying the same qualificand, ―this silent-space X is qualified by speaking-absence Y‖. On the other hand, difference referred to ―this is not silence‖ type of negation. Thus, absence of non-speaking-ness and difference from a silenceme are two distinguishable sub-categories of abhava. These blank spaces may be perceived /cognized as a category called ―absence‖ (absence is always designated in relation to something). One could perceive absence by assigning the absential qualifier/ counterpositive to the locus of empty locus/ referend, qualificand. Thus, the absence of speaking means perceiving the dyadic relations between two constructs: speaking and non-speaking in a certain locus. There is no absolute non-speaking silent zone---all silent zones are pervaded by the non-silence and vise versa, however, when, speaking/listening subject is perceiving something as ―silence‖ is actually cognizing ―absence‖ of stipulated non- silence in a locus. Thus, in the terminologies of NV, the speaking/listening subject perceives the 56 ―absence‖ of couterpositive (stipulated non-silence) in the locus of supposed/stipulated silenceme. And silenceme is always perceived in an absential relational term. Key-words: Absence(Abhava), couterpositive, locus, foreclosure or redemption, Psychosis, creative silenceme, transcendental silenceme, pathological silenceme, absolute silenceme, conspiracy of silenceme. 4.18. What is inside and what is outside of language? ―Language is the perfect element in which interiority is as external as exteriority is internal‖— Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel, F. ―Language is the sovereign who, in a permanent state of exception, declares that there is nothing outside language and that language always beyond itself.‖ – Homo Sacer: Soverign Power and bare Life. Agamben, G. Here is the famous phallus of siva (sivalimga), the Hindu god with the holy mother’s vagina surrounding it. In the icon of sivalimga, penis (that is symbolized as phallus) penetrates the holy mother’s vagina and what is worshipped by the Hindus is an inner body— are the devotees within the womb of that lady at the moment of intercourse? Devotees’ subjective position is within the body of the holy mother and at the same time, the corporeal is outside of the holy phallus. Hindu women are pouring white milk (semen?) upon the symbolic penis--the phallus gets semen from the outside, the text of phallus does not inseminate—it disseminates. Inside and outside co-exist. Everything is text—everything is within the signifying chain of L and simultaneously something is beyond L—outside L. As for example, silenceme is within the L –it is controlling the L and at the same time it is not L, outside L. Sememe is confined within the lexicon with one or more fixed meanings ascribed to it and sememe can also defer the fixed meaning by differing with its presupposed ascribed meaning(s) in a given discourse. Thus, deciding the status of L‘s inside-outside leads to some undecidables and that is an aporia, where deterministic linguistic analysis fails to decide or quantify the meaning. Keywords: interior, exterior, aporia. 4.19. Do S/HSs perceive such fragmented hierarchical levels of linguistic analysis at the moment of speaking/hearing? Though a linguist, out of her technical-cognitive interest in science, fragments (in a form of analytical abstraction or ―apoddhara‖ as termed by Bhartrhari. He considered analytical grammatical procedures as child‘s play, ―valanamupalanana‖) ) utterances into different 57 hierarchic levels, the S/HS, at the moment of speaking, ontologically speaking, does not have the cognition of the fragmented levels of linguistic analysis, instead s/he has gestalt perception of L as a whole. All the cases giving names to the fragment of L by a linguist or a grammarian are happened after the act of analyzing the speaking/ writing. Therefore, the act of apoddhara is a case of post-naming (anvyakheya) of the fragmented body of the L. For this reason, Post- formalists do not subscribe the notion of ―morpheme‖. linguistics is a meta-speaking on speaking—meta-symbolic order on the symbolic order. At the moment of speaking, I, as an S/HS, do not need to know the constitutive algorithmic principles of meta-symbolic order that was inserted into our super-ego as L-managers/-judges/-polices. Silenceme is an ―other‖ in this meta-symbolic order. i desire(s) to reject this order of grammatical control--i am tired of meta-speaking game. Keywords: Gestalt perception, ontology, apoddhara (analytical abstraction), anvyakheya (post-naming of an understood object). 4.20. Do you think that the ordinamento or ordnung (the juridical- familial-statist rule, regulation and system, technocratic order or order of things) influences or determines the categories of grammatical discourse? The order of things /categoremes/ taxonomies of grammar/ vyakarana are controlled/approximated/ appropriated by the social/ institutional order of things. It was pointed out by Mercuse and later on elaborated by Foucault. We have government and binding, control and subject and object—a distinct hierarchy. We have concept of inheritance of L like private property. We have the sexist gender system in the prescriptive grammar, that governs the practice of sexual discriminations or cultural practice of gender-discrimination overrides L. ―I‖ is the first person ( in the Sanskrit Grammar, it is uttama purusa, the best male), others are unprivileged second and third. The social distance is powerful enough. Look at the technocratic metaphors used in Chomskian syntax—he is perceiving human body as a machine. The terms like ―Computation‘, ―array‖ ―interface‖ etc.(e.g. .Chomsky and Lasnik,1991:4 used a term like ―parser‖ in a statement like “ .. .one component of mind/brain is a parser.‖) or in the operations like ―COMMAND‖, ―SATISFY‖, ―SPELL OUT‖ reflect the metonymic transformation of creative S/HS as all these functions in uppercase letter make me remember Schank‘s (1975) L-free representation (PROPEL, MOVE, INGEST or CONTROL, PART etc.) which combines primitive conceptual roles and conceptual categories employed to process Natural L. 58 To me these are not only metaphors—a case of displacement of algorithmic/non- algorithmic human mind with an algorithmic machine, but these are also metonyms, by which the potentialities of human psyche is condensed and telescoped. Keywords: Discursive formation determining the non-discursive formation and vise-versa. 59  CHAPTER-V LINGUISTICS 5.1. What is linguistics? A1: Linguistics is a science, which studies L as an object. By gathering huge substantive EL variations, it analyzes (a) the structure synchronically and (b) the genesis, origin and development of that L diachronically. Linguistics can also help to simulate L in the machine with a goal to achieve artificially intelligent machine. A2: Linguistics is concerned with the Homo Eloquens, who can create infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words with the help of his/her “physical organ” or LAD. The goal of linguistics is not to deal with arbitrary substantial signs or EL, but the formal rule of IL, the innate biological endowment by which Homo Eloquens generates L. A3: Linguistics is a speaking on speaking and thus it is a meta-speaking or a meta-symbolic order on the symbolic order of a given “L” with a goal to know the body of the S/HS so that the knower (the linguist) can help to govern the corporeal of the S/HS and his/her community for the sake of governmental agency or business enterprise . As all wills to know lead to will to power, linguistics is no exception regarding govern-mentality of the analyst. Keywords: Power / knowledge nexus, Anatomo-bio-politics, govern- mentality, symbolic order, meta-speaking, meta-symbolic order. 5.2. What is Semiotics? Semiotics (derived from “Semion” that means signs) is a discourse on signifiers and their types, ramifications etc. Linguistics is treated as a branch of semiotics. There are several divisions and sub-divisions of signs in semiotics as introduced by Charles Sanders Pierce, e.g., symbol represents the arbitrary relation between signifier and signified—it is an associated relation, e.g. money is a symbol of exchange; in case of index, one can infer apparently non-visible sign from another visible sign. Thus index needs presuppositions of presence of object denoted, e.g., in some cases, smoke entails the presence of fire; icon resembles the supposed object denoted. The degree of arbitrariness varies in all these three cases, e.g., icon never represents “full” resemblance of signifier and signified. Keywords: Semion, , sign, index, symbol, icon.  5.3. What is Micro-linguistics? Micro or Core linguistics deals only with the Phonology, Morphology, Lexicology and Syntax by deploying various methods of logic and mathematics. Its only concern is to analyze L (as thing- in-itself) formally without being influenced by other factors (social, political, neurological etc.). Thus, L is abstracted here as far as possible from the other variables that control L. It is a part of Macro linguistics. (Area C in the following diagram) Keywords: Logic and Mathematics as tools, Phonology, Morphology, Lexicology, Syntax. 5.4. What is Macro-linguistics? Macro-linguistics perceives L as a thing-for-other, a product of many other and external factors. It interprets L from the perspectives of different other neighboring disciplines: sociology, psychology, history, political science, economics, neurology, physics, computer science, statistics, literary analysis, aesthetics etc. Here, due to this interaction, various hyphenated disciplines are born, e.g., bio-linguistics, psycho-linguistics, socio-linguistics, ethno-linguistics, neuro-linguistics etc. (Area A in the following diagram) Keywords: bio-linguistics, psycho-linguistics, socio-linguistics, ethno- linguistics, neuro-linguistics, quantitative linguistics, algebraic linguistics, computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, glottopolitics (Politics of L), forensic linguistics, lingua-aesthetics etc.. 5.5. What is peripheral linguistics? In between Micro and Macro linguistics, there is a zone where the both Macro and Micro communicate. That is, a part of analysis has been done by considering L as thing-in-itself and part as thing-for-others. In this zone, Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis are operating. If one analyzes meaning, s/he can simultaneously analyze it by utilizing symbolic logic, sentential calculus or by seeking the meaning of the unit in the context of socio-politics or human psyche. The praxis or performance of silenceme as depicted in is the perfect example of peripheral linguistics. (Area B in the following diagram) Keywords: Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, *Praxis/performance of Silenceme 61 HYPHAENATED SUB-DISCIPLINES OTHER SOCIO- LINGUISTICS DISCIPLINES PSYCHO- LINGUISTICS Psychology, NEURO- LINGUISTICS Philosophy, ETC. Sociology, Neurology, Genetics D etc. MACRO LINGUISTICS CORE / MICRO C LINGUISTICS B PERIPHERAL A LINGUISTICS 5.6. What is the goal of linguistics? The goal of linguistics 1. is to understand the structure of human cognitive domain or mind/brain by analyzing one of the manifestations of human cognition: L, e.g., Chomskian Biolinguistics. 2. is to understand physical reality as it is revealed in the L. By analyzing L logically, one can decipher the “real” world—its meaning, orders and structure, e.g., Semantics as proposed by Logical positivists. 3. is to understand social reality of a given community as it is revealed in the L. e.g., Linguistic Paleontology or Socio-linguistics. 4. is to understand psychic reality as it is revealed in the L of the S/HS, e.g., Psychoanalysis. Keywords: (Structure of the) Real world (Physics) and metalanguage, mental reality (Psychology), social fact (Sociology). 5.7. What is the utility of linguistics? 62 A1: If any subject does not serve or subscribe state policy or business enterprise, the survival of that subject must be questioned. Linguistics serves the purpose of the defense since the inception of descriptive linguistics. By collecting data, it helps to have information about a speech community so that good governance can be possible and not only that, on the basis of the data collected from the remote unknown speech community, one or more cryptic Ls can be formed so that it would be difficult to decipher the cryptic L. In case of forensic research, linguistics is also useful tool for voice-recognition. In case of business enterprise, speech synthesis and text-to-speech synthesis machines for various Ls is the urgent necessity and linguists can serve these goals. Linguistics is also a managerial enterprise that helps state to plan, manage the diversity of Els. From the perspective of pedagogy, the tools of linguistics can be used in the military crash courses for quick learning of the target L of country to be attacked. A2: Linguistics has a wide range of applications—from school curriculum to clinics, it can be applied. The knowledge of linguistics is necessary to regulate first L as well as second L acquisition process and it can also be used in graphemic reformations. In the context of clinic, the knowledge of linguistics is important in the cases of speech pathological problems or in the cases of neurolinguistic disorders. Above all, the different problems of interaction or communications can be solved by using linguistic tools. A3: When the notion of market-utility was in vogue in Europe, Goethe wrote Mademoiselle de Maupin (1835) to reject the utilitarian market-fundamentalism. He also proposed his theory of “Art for art’s sake” and, later on this very concept was formed as a movement against all- pervading market fundamentalism as well as utilitarianism. Except the revolt against the utilitarian philosophy of the market, there is little to support for the “Art for art’s sake”-doctrine that was striving for something called “pure art” without any teleological engagement with the “other”. The pure epistemology of L is not the goal of organic linguist (cf. 7.4)—s/he is not even ready to (re-)produce market-friendly product—rather s/he is searching interaction without coercion or manipulation, i.e., intersubjective interpersonal relations. In searching so, s/he is engaged with the problems of the have-nots of the society. Linguistics, when it is talking about pleasure of non-manipulative interaction, the so-called “utility” of linguistics revels. Keywords: Clinical, pedagogical and forensic applications, Language planning, Language Management, structure of the real world, metalanguage, 5.8. What is field linguistics? 63 Inductive Science needs to follow following steps: 1. Collection of data 2. Observation of the collected corpus 3. Experimentation with the corpus 4. Generalization and categorization of the collected and experimented data For the collection of the data, a linguist must go the field. This field may be an archive, where written records are preserved or may be a place, where a speech community inhabits. The fieldwork in linguistics had become a weapon of colonization after the Second World War. The tools of descriptive linguistics were used for quick learning of a foreign L and linguistics was used in the American Military crash course for this purpose. Later on it was pejoratively branded as a “paratroopers’ linguistics”; some missionary enterprise also took linguistic fieldwork as a part of their religious preaching and developed their own tool (viz., Tagmemics) to analyze L and came to be known as missionary linguistics. By collecting data of an under-populated L from a remote corner and storing large corpus in the computer repertoire, the field linguistic enterprise (along with corpus linguistics) helps to (a) build up a database that can help state power to govern by deploying bio-politics; (b) build up a base for a cryptic L that serves the purpose of the strategic defense. Chomsky rescued linguistics from becoming a colonial discipline with civilizing mission, but his different models in the last five decades have been also used in the Field work for the same purpose. What is more alarming here is the goal of Chomskian linguistics—to analyze L means to know the “mind”—it also may be perceived as a part of bio-politics. However, we are now at a juncture, when ethnographical techniques are used to collect narratives from the field. The fieldworker is now an eco-tourist—s/he is now reporting the linguistic state of affairs in a form of eco-travelogue. This new linguist fieldworker is not alienated from the target population, rather s/he is working with empathy and acts as a participant-observer, but s/he, as a watchdog of the state, is also reporting the peripheral state of affairs to the Masters of the Universe. Keywords: *Eco-Travelogue, missionary linguistics, Paratroopers’ linguistics, governmentalty, anatomo-bio-politics, welfare and warfare, *Eco-field linguistics. 5.9. What is applied linguistics? 64 A1: Theoretical linguistics does not consider the problems of second L acquisition, L use in pedagogy, problems of standardization, implementation computer-generated speech, building up a lexicon for a definite L group etc. The point, where theoretical linguistics fails to operate the practical issues of day-to-day life, the realm of applied linguistics begins. A2: In the given society, where the constructed binaries like theory and praxis or mental labor and physical labor are tolerated, this type of division between theoretical and applied linguistics is much expected. Theory, if is alienated from the day-to-day problems, is not theory at all. When the relative importance of either mental or physical labor is assigned in a given society, this very categorization creates a hierarchy of privileges. In the “ideal” situation, there is no such division. In that given ideal condition, theoretical is practical and vise versa as every application needs theoretical framework and theory needs the application. Keywords: Theory and Praxis, Mental Labor and Physical Labor. 65  CHAPTER-VI HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS 6.0. How to write History? The interpretation of events of history cannot escape positional subjectivity of the context- sensitive historian, who narrates the events according her gaze though constructed by ―other‘‘‘s ideologies. Therefore, there are different methods of writing History according to different ideological standpoints. A separate discipline has emerged to tackle the methods of writing history—this is historiography, i.e., philosophy of writing History, where different methodological issues for writing history are contested. One way to write history is to put the series of events in a chronological order by following Gregorian or some other calendars. This chronological order may be burdened with the ideology of evolutionism, progress and development. According to evolutionary school, yesterday was worse and tomorrow will be a better day and they think it in the line of ―natural‖ evolution and another school thinks otherwise. Even both of them try to formulate a law (in analogy with physics or biology) and describe succession of social event as ‖natural‖. They also predict future course of action on the basis of this law. This type of determinism of antecedents- consequences are depicted on the basis of cause and effect theory by forgetting David Hume‘s refutation of the entailment of cause and effect in the material world. This type of determinism is termed as a fallacy and called as ―historicism‖. There may be diachrony within synchrony—diachronic and synchronic facts may co-exist—diachronic fact may reappear in the contemporary time and may cohabit, or present time can take recourse to the long past to solve the present problems or facts of the contemporary time may reinterpreted on the basis of distant past and so on and thus there are many possibilities of writing History. We are now going to (re-)write the history of linguistics. Before that, do we not concern about the intricacies writing History? Chronological order does not always work in the field of linguistics also. There is not only one history—there are different histories written by different historian-subject with (in)definite contexts. Or, one may write a meta-discourse on the discourse of History. Keywords: Historiography, histories, historicism, determinism, Entailment of cause and effect and its nullification in History, anachronism in the linear history. 6.1. What are the three revolutions in linguistics? Though, in the history of linguistic science, continuity is assumed to consider general grammar, philology and linguistics as a progressive development of study of L as object, there are epistemological breaks among general grammar, philology and linguistics. And in linguistics, there are three distinct thresholds: the first was initiated by Saussure, then Chomsky and the last one is Derrida‘s Grammmatology. Saussure‘s (1915) revolution inaugurates the doors of structuralism, a movement that influenced, apart from linguistics, other human sciences. Saussure introduced six dichotomies (substance-form, content-expression, signifier-signified, synchrony-diachrony, langue-parole, syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation) There are four offshoots of Saussure‘s structuralism in different parts of the world: Paris, Prague, Copenhagen and America and all these spots were bridged by one exceptional globe-trotter: Roman Jackobson, one of the exponents of structuralism. Structuralism as propounded by Saussure in linguistics influenced other human sciences and this paradigm shift was named by Levi-Strauss as ―linguistic turn‖ in social sciences. The descriptive analysis of 20th C linguistics was deeply influenced by the techniques of one Indian grammarian Panini(4 B.C.). History sometimes “progresses” anachronistically by taking cue from the distant past and this is a case of epistemological recurrence. American brand of structural linguistics heavily depended on the behaviourist psychology as well as empirical science. Chomsky, who introduced Rationalism in the sphere of linguistics, took a stand against behaviourism, empiricism and structuralism. It is the second major paradigm shift in linguistics. Derrida, who introduced Grammatology, made the third paradigm shift: the scientific endeavour to formalize L ends. The presence of metaphysics in the scientific realm was found. Deconstruction reveals that the presences of opponent‘s views are also the part of proposer‘s discourse. 67 Though Derrida did not have anything against Chomsky, the thinkers, who are believed to be the actors of the performances in the arena of the Post-structuralism and Post-Modernism vehemently attacked the grand-narrative of Chomsky. Rolland Barthes, M. Foucault and Julia Kristeva were the real players to directly or indirectly offend the essentialist, reductionist meta- narrative of Cartesian linguistics. All of them were Nietzsche‟s ancestors. They are reiterating Nietzsche in the 60‟s and 70‟s of the 20th C A.D. though Nietzsche died in 1900. Again anachronism prevails in the so-called linear “progress” of academics. Thus Nietzsche‟s specter is haunting in the post-structural, post- modern and post formal linguistics. And in case of post-formal linguistics, another ghost reappears, Bhartrihari (7th C A.D.), an Indian philosopher of grammar…Bhartrihari did not believe in the analytical tools of Grammar. He emphasized on the sentence-holism—the cognition of sentences as a whole… The three ruptures/epistemological breaks/thresholds in linguistics are adorned with the epistemological recurrences—past knowledge is reappeared and reproduced in a ―new‖ form. Writing the linear history of linguistics is almost impossible. Keywords: Saussurian Revolution and Structuralism, Chomskian Revolution, Nietzschean or Derridean Revolution, Paradigm shifts, Epistemological break/thresholds/rupture. 6.2. How does linguistics differ from Vyakarana and General Grammar? 1. The goal of vyakarana Vyakarana is a Sanskrit word that means ―analysis or fragmentation of the L‖. Vyakarana is also referred to as ―sabdanusasana‖--―governance of word/L‖ as depicted by Patanjali in his Mahabhasya, i.e., the question of governmentality is also crucial here. In the last phase of the Vedic era (about 4th to 6th C B.C.), writing Vyakarana was motivated by the then caste-system as all the grammarians tried to protect an engineered L (Sanskrit) by deploying rules for fragmenting that very special L so that the protected L would not be contaminated by the so- called ―distorted‖ (in the gaze of Brahmins) EL of outcasts or non-Brahmins, who were refused to have any access to the dominant knowledge-system. 2. The goal of Grammar 68 The goal of grammar is to preach one selected L (i.e. a standardized L) to the ―other‖ varieties within an imagined nation state. The ―tool‖ Grammar has been utilized to colonize and hegemonize the captive speakers of defeated Ls (so called ‗dialects‘). To understand this statement, let us hear a story from Ivan Illich. In describing 'West to Orient' project of Columbus, Illich (in Pattanayak, 1981) mentioned an overlooked name, Elio Antoniode Nebrija (15th c., contemporary to Columbus) who offered Queen Isabella a "tool" to colonize the Ls spoken by her own subjects. In fact, Nebrija wanted to replace the the speech of the people by implementing the grammar of Queen's lingua. Internal colonization began with this attempt to grammaticalize Queen's tongue in a Grammar book, "Grammatica de la Castellana" (1492), the first in any European tongue. And thus begun the conquest by means of this engineered tool, "Grammar book", chemically synthesized weapon to suppress "untutored barbaric" speech in home and abroad. In this way the external colonization had also began. Nebrija himself speaks about the marriage of empire and L (i.e. sword, queen‘s tongue and grammar book). Therefore, the selected variety or standard L now needs tutors. Nebrija argued for standardizing a living L for the benefit of the newly invented printing press. Consequently the official ideology of "literacy" came into light. Here is a switch over from people's vernacular to Grammarians' L (=Queen's L), or from vernacular learning to MT education. Through this monopoly of the Grammarians' L compulsory education could be implemented in the public schools through a homogenous L of power. And in this way the "captive speakers" of "other" "dialects" (they are, in fact, defeated Ls) have been born internally. In the case of external colonization, writing grammar books was a usual practice by standardizing one of the colony's L and making a "tool" (grammar book) for it. This switch over from 'vernacular' to an "officially taught MT‖, according to Illich, is, "...switch from breast to bottle, from subsistence to welfare, from production for use to production for the market, from expectations divided between State and Church to a world where the Church is marginal, religion is privatized, and the State assumes the material functions hitherto claimed only by the Church. " (Illich in Pattanayak,1981:15) It was estimated that “there may have been about 80 million Native Americans in Latin America when Columbus „discovered‟ the continent …and about 12 to 15 million more-- north of the Reo Grande” were “slaughtered, decimated, and dispersed” (Chomsky, in Peck, 1987: 121-22) in course of colonizing America. On the other hand, the new tool, discovered by Nebrija, helped to create terror by the way of linguistic genocide internally and externally as well. 69 The goal of linguistics, as depicted in the 5.6, is totally different from the goals of grammar and comparative philology, though linguistics has often borrowed analytical procedures grammar as well as vyakarana for the purpose of analysis (e.g., attesting underlying form of a lexeme bears the traces of Comaparative Philology). Thus, though there ruptures in between grammar and linguistics, recurrences are also observed in a form of epistemological amalgamation. . Formalist and statist deployment of Grammar fragments, dissects and disintegrates “my” (S/HS my-ness rather than that of I-ness) gestalt perception of “L”--the body of “my L” and that is governmentality. I perceive the blooded body of my L in the text-books of prescriptive grammar. Keywords: Vyakarana, General Grammar, Epistemological break/ threshold, Language Police/judge/manager. 6.3. How does linguistics differ from Comparative Philology? Comparative Philology (henceforth CP) only analyzes the arbitrary signs or the raw material of L (substance) or EL. CP, by analyzing raw materials of EL, formulates a ―law‖ following positivist path by believing the cause and effect entailment. CP searches ―authentic‖ meaning of supposed ―word‖ by deploying the tool ―etymology.‖ What is ―authentic‖ meaning? Socrates questioned, (Cratylus 436, 439) how do you know that the first person, who is naming an object is naming that object after ―perfectly‖ knowing that object‘s attributes? Searching authenticity of meaning is a case of extreme essentialism and a metaphysical query. Attesting a proto-L, on the other hand, is an epi-phenomenal enquiry that leads to a metaphysical totality of a supposed generalized proto-L. If Chomskian hypothesis of Universal Grammar is to be believed, there is no way to accept epi-phenomenal genealogical classification of Ls based on the substantial arbitrary signs. CP follows the biological evolutionary theory to show the development /progress of an EL. Hence, it is a case of historicism (deterministic linear history with definite cause and effect, which can be described in a legal term). This genealogical fantasy is required for the imagination of nation-state, as nation state needs a glorious past tradition. EL, arbitrary signs with the load of values (those are determined by the existing societies‘ order of things)ascribed to them, has become a metaphoric private property, which can be inherited from the predecessors and can be transmitted to the inheritors through the linear blood-relation. The ―evolution‖ of capital-intensive EL can be perceived as a metaphor of familial inheritance. 70 Attesting a proto-L within an L family, on the other hand, is an epiphenomenal enquiry that leads to an essentialist metaphysical singular totality. It is perfectly possible to play chess by one new player, when one of the two players withdraws at the intermediate moment. This new player may not be aware of the previous states of the play. In the same way, we can continue the L game—we can continue our speaking without knowing the past state of affairs. Ontologically speaking, the knowledge of past L does not help S/HS‘s speaking at this moment. Epistemologically speaking, from the perspective of history of science, there is no pre-figuration of contemporary formal linguistics in philology (cf. Foucault, 1973:83), though it is incorporated in linguistics in the guise of HL. One may also link the non-discursive political gaze, as Said did in his 1978 book, with the discursive formation of EL-centric “genealogical” order of things in CP. However, critical apprehension or negation of such discipline, strategically (not epistemologically) speaking, is too difficult even after the two revolutions in linguistics (Saussure and Chomsky) or after Derrida‟s critical attack (1998) to this discipline as a good number of scholars are still perceiving pre- figuration of linguistics in philology and they brand it as something called “historical linguistics”. This is an example of cohabitation of diachronically inherited epistemology (?, i.e., CP) with the synchronic epistemology. In the business of academics, this is not a rare phenomenon as in physics, quantum mechanics sometimes co-exists with classical Newtonian physics. It is matter of wonder that, when the exponents of CP like Jakob Grimm (1785-1863), Rasmus Rask (1787-1832), Franz Bopp (1791-1867), August Friedrich Pott (1802-1887) were reigning in Germany, Karl Marx developed a critical negation of this discipline. When Marx published his Book of Verse (1837), he included few chapters of his “humoristic” novel Scorpion and Felix as a supplement. In the Chapter 21 (Philological Broodings) of this novel, Marx had developed a critique of this discipline at the time of its inception. Marx wrote a parody of neo- grammarians‟ philological texts, i.e., he took the way of, what Derrida (1982) called as, “double sessions/writings”—a strategy of repeating/mirroring the “original text” to reveal the internal non- coherence of the text. It is impossible to compose parody of parody-text—one cannot deconstruct parody and that is the failure of deconstructive strategy. Keywords: Diachrony, historical linguistics, comparative philology, etymology, Metaphoric transformation of Evolutionary theory, Legal discourse and causal deterministic theory, Linguistic Paleontology, genealogical fantasy. 71  6.4. What is the Model-Theoretic Approach in the domain of Academics? Models are TRs and they do have some problem-solving capacity and certain truth(s) of its own. By means of mathematics and logic, models are being hypothetically made to solve supposed problems of economics or linguistics or human science in general. Models are served as blueprints for the respective TRs of different sciences. In case of syntactic theory, Chomsky, with rare intellectual ability and like a typecast engineer with preconceived blueprints, made at least five models (1957 model as it is found in Syntactic Structures, Standard Model of 1965, Extended Standard Model the 70‘s, Government and Binding Model of the 80‘s and Principles and Parameters or Minimalist Programme of the 90‘s of the past century) of syntax to understand the structure of human mind. The order of syntactic tools for attesting the part of cognitive domain had been changed at least for five times—and thus we get at least five order of mind[s]. We can say that five witness-minds of linguist found five different orders of things in the sentences of L in different space-times and did not get a single Cartesian Mind. This proves the essential presupposed construction of rule-governed phenomenon (single mind), which is not a single mind at all. It is nothing but a model-theoretic algocentric discourse (a discourse that is motivated by metamathematical formalism or computational algorithmic simulation and which ignores the non-algorithmic constitutive ―rules‖) represented by divergent socio-anthropocentric perceptions. Thus ―Mind‖ is slippery enough to grasp by models and models ignore the possibility of non- /extra-algorithmic or non-/extra-formal system of L by only concentrating on the presupposed syntactic algorithms. Not only that, one can also technically execute models without being aware of philosophy of science. (cf. 1.10 above) Model theoreticians are doing formalist research by confining themselves in the door-less, windowless TR, completely alienated from the real politik and thus they are (re-producing) estranged models. Keywords: Model as Truth-Rooms, Formalism, estranged models. 6.5. What are the limitations of Model-Theoretic Approach? No Formalism is complete or adequate to handle ―all‖ the human or non-human problems, though once Hilbert thought to develop an all-encompassing formalism that could articulate and solve all the possible problems within a mathematical Model. Gödel (1931), taking cue from Russell‘s paradox, declared the incompleteness of formal system in his theorem that refuted 72 Hilbert‘s dream. According to his theorem no formal system is complete enough to handle all the problems within a formal paradigm. If one puts any Gödel‘s proposition or Russell‘s paradox (e.g., ―One Calcuttan says that all Calcuttans are liars‖) in Logical Form (that follows the Logical Positivist path of propositional calculus) of S-Structure in the GB model of Chomskian syntax, the total formal as well as mechanical algorithmic system may collapse. Some members of the technical intelligentsia highly depend on the models or TRs as a part of their business. They reduce human beings, by considering them as a ―rational‖ agents, into alphabets of the given model, thus human beings are condensed and undergo a metonymic transformation. The future course of human action is predicted (and controlled) on the basis of the part or metonymic knowledge of subjects. There are models --cat-walking in the ramp. They are slim—they are suffering from the Anorexia Nervosa (“deliberate” under-eating for keeping the body according to the supposed standard of the fashion shows) or Anorexia Bulimia (“voluntary” vomiting after eating nutritious foods). They are simulating poverty-stricken women of the so-called “third world”, who are also suffering from the non-deliberate mal-nutrition—they are deprived of food, their entailment of food is missing for the (un)known reasons. The model scientists, by keeping the supposed norms of the academic fashion show, either play with the algebra of the model or as a member of data-collection team, fit data in the dice of models. When they are playing with models, the happenings of the outer world are in oblivion. They also forget the foundational/anti-foundational questions of science. If the nutritious epistemological food (say, as for example, dialogues of Socrates, Spinoza‟s text on ethics or Wittgenstein‟s discourse etc.) is to be given to the model scientists to eat, as my personal experiences in the academic community show, they either refuse that food or after eating that, they try to vomit it out. They are simulating the models in the ramp—the models are simulating the poverty-stricken women of the world of the third—and thus some model-scientists are parading in the conspicuous ramps of the academic fashion shows. Keywords: Gödel’s Theorem, Russell’s Paradox, Metamathermatics, Bell’s Theorem, non-anthropocentric social engagement, Model as a closure, simulations, metonymic transformation/approximation of human beings into binary alphabets. 73  6.6. What is structuralism? There is definite structure, de-sign in the order of signs. One can categorize, generalize external objects objectively with the structural taxonomy. Saussure introduced six dichotomies to understand the outer object L, viz. signifier-signified, substance-form, content-expression, langue-parole, synchrony-diachrony and syntagmatic-paradigmatic relation. Structuralism is modern human science and all the attributes of modernity is also observed in structuralism. It generalizes the facts of the outer world to form a metanarrative; it imposes scientific (presupposed) structure on the outside object for better understanding; it finds the essential character of the object by reducing its characters etc. and thus structuralism is a part of modern human science. Keywords: Subject and Structure (of object), modernity. 6.7. What is Post-structuralism? Post-structuralism, a movement initiated in Europe in the mid sixties of the 20 th C., does not try to impose certain structure or order of things to understand external object, rather it looks into different representations made by different subjects in different space and time. It does not also analyze, fragment the body of the object. Essential generalization does not work as it ignores different shades of different objects —the metanarrative[s] end[s]. There is no singular origin—searching origin is like quest for God, and thus it is metaphysical. There is no fixed meaning. Analysis is violence—violence to other – intervention into the body of the subject (Anatomo-bio- politics). Plurality is the buzzword at this moment. There is no science exists in singular number—there are sciences—different TRs, different world-views. Keywords: Decentred subject, logic of disintegration, structures as historical a priori, grandnarrative, non-formalism, anti-modernity, anti-essentialism. 6.8. What are the conspicuous sub-disciplines of linguistics? To sustain the transformation of material capital to cultural capital and to preserve and to disseminate dominant ideology, traditional linguists are proposing some sub-disciplines of linguistics, which do not directly serve the major surplus labour-suppliers (peasantry, working 74 class) or do not have epistemological status, but these sub-disciplines are produced for the market to show off mega-technology. The ostentatious display of these ephemeral sub- disciplines as a commodity instigates fetish of the buyers (who belong to the leisure class) and subscribe automation at the cost of environment. In addition to that, though ―valuable‖ as per academic market norms or conference fashion shows, these sub-disciplines do not serve any direct epistemological purpose. As for example, computational linguistics, the goal of which is to build up a speaking machine without considering the problems human-machine (in)equation, is a conspicuous discipline along with corpus linguistics. Computational linguistics desires that computer would speak as if s/he is a human being. Linguistic data must be fitted according the dictums of available software algorithm. Whatever may be the human linguistic order of things (may be it is an n-nary system or it may follow some procedural or non-algorithmic rule instead of constitutive rule), it must follow the available binary programme available in the contemporary generation of machine. In addition, when the programme is ―fully‖ executed, computer pretends as if s/he is a market (wo)man: s/he can repeat/translate stereotypical sentences etc. Could anyone prove the following equation: speaking subject= f (binary machine) or vise versa? Perceiving body as a machine also leads to bio-political violence. Computer only ―knows‖ the algorithm; s/he has no linguistic competence. Earlier, in case of corpus linguistics with the help of cards, papers and pens we were manipulating linguistic data, which is now being done by the computer that is nothing more than a glorified tool for manipulating linguistic data. But the term ‗corpus linguistics' which includes the attempt to use computer to process natural L means that the word 'computer' has some uses other than only a tool, as otherwise there would be a problem related to philosophy of science, if the computer is proved to be only as useful as pens, papers and cards. So why exactly do we need to talk about such a discipline as computational linguistics? All the conspicuous disciplines are the works of the relaxing time (provided by the ―others‖, who perform surplus labour) of the leisure class. Keywords: Conspicuous consumption (in academics) Ostentatious display of subjects. 75  CHAPTER-VII THE LINGUIST 7.1. Who is a linguist? A1: A polyglot is not a linguist. A linguist may not have the knowledge of many Ls. A linguist can analyze any Ls; even that L may be unknown to her/him by deploying analytical tools of linguistics. S/he is not even an L judge/police/manager of a civil society. A2: If we are allowed to follow Gramscian division of intellectual, linguists are of two types: inorganic/ traditional and organic linguists. An inorganic linguist is a member of the technical intelligentsia or a leisure class, who is paid (in a form of a sign: money) for reproducing his/her cultural capital in a form of “paper” in the refereed journals or in a form of commoditized book or by lecturing on “L” in an enterprise of knowledge/information industry. And thus s/he, as a business(wo)man is subscribing print capitalism and dominant ideology like any other members of his/her “scientific” community/tribe. Like a tribe, linguist community (or scientific community in general) has a consensus, hierarchical levels as well as differences of opinions, which is revealed in a special shared critical “L of science” or algocentric discourse (a discourse that is motivated by metamathematical formalism or computational algorithmic simulation and which ignores the non-algorithmic constitutive “rules”), which alienates surplus labor-performer to participate in a dialogue with the intelligentsia. In fact, peasantry and working class, by dint of their surplus labor, help to sustain the livelihood of this leisure class. An inorganic or traditional linguist is only reproducing the knowledge without interrogating the existing paradigm; s/he only copies the given model and sets L-data into that model-dice. That data or corpus helps the ruling class to sustain governmentality by the way of coercion or persuasion. Thus, inorganic linguist works as a part of data-supplier team that promotes scientific imperialism. S/he, as a member of the civil society that bridges the link between state and the mass, can also act as a L police, who implement punishment for alleged L error or as L judge, who is showing the law of L as “natural” or as a manager, who is planning the distribution and appropriation of L material within an imagined nation state. Sometimes linguists are asked to act like these types of decision-makers in the “civilized” society. However, there are some organic intellectuals, who do not obey the gap between theory and praxis and do not subscribe the dominant ideology that preaches the basic ideology of snatching surplus labor from the major “other” by emphasizing on the supposed “welfare”, which is a euphemistic mask to conceal the bio-politics of academia. Organic linguist is not an L judge/police/manager and is a working class-participant, who decides, by the way of discussion, the possibility of intersubjective dialogue without coercion and hegemony in an ideal just and free society. Key-words: polyglot, public sphere, model-theoretic tools, inorganic (technical intelligentsia) and organic intellectuals, algocentric discourse, 7.2. Who is a member of technical intelligentsia? Technical intelligentsia is a class-in-itself that only reproduces knowledge in a form of cultural capital, which is a metamorphosis of the material capital relation. S/he speaks in a special technical and critical L or algocentric discourse, a restricted code that bars mass to participate in a free and non-authoritarian dialogue. A member of technical intelligentsia acts as a watchdog of the state-power as s/he reports the mass-contradictions created by the state agency or a business enterprise. Thus, a member of technical intelligentsia is a subscriber of the ruling class ideology and is not an initiator of discourse that interrogates the dominant paradigm. S/he, as a model-theoretician, works within the TR by deploying model-theoretic approach like a typecast engineer with a preconceived blueprint. S/he, by her/his profession, is completely alienated from the toiling mass and one of the subscribers of “publish and perish” industry controlled by the print capitalistic enterprise. Keywords: Alienation, Culture of critical discourse as restricted code, *algocentric discourse, *Language Police /judge/ manager in the civil society, reproduction of cultural capital, surplus labor dependency, Model-Theoretician. 7.3. Who is an organic intellectual? An organic intellectual is conscious about her/his class-position and acts with self-reflexivity and commitment towards those, who are supplying her/him their surplus labor for her sustenance. Organic intellectual never tries to preserve the status quo of the two classes: snatcher of surplus labor and performer of the surplus labor, and maintains some politico-ethical standards. Ideally, s/he is not even a vanguard as vangaurdism creates a difference between superior knowledge of the intellectual and the knowledge(TRs) of different classes. 77 An example may be given regarding her/his activity. When s/he is asked to survey a population regarding their health or L unrest, s/he might ask some basic questions: Why do we, as outsiders intervene into the other‟s domain? Whose purpose does the survey serve? Keywords: Ethics, Categorical Imperative (and its problem thereof), commitment, social engagement/responsibility, vangaurdism. 7.4. What should be the praxiological goal of an organic linguist or what is the responsibility of a linguist? An ideal organic linguist is always looking for emancipation from the existing dominant paradigm, that disrupts the intersubjective relationship for, though she knows that there is no emancipation is possible as human being is like a old man in the sea (as depicted in Hemingway‟s novel) or s/he is like cursed Sisyphus, an absurd creative (wo)man living in the midst of proliferated death industry or morbidity and solitude. S/he in spite of knowing that „everything is not bad, but dangerous”, is continuing her creative work by not reproducing banal propositions, but creating novel gazes just like a flaneur--spectator within the crowd but at the same time is alienated from the crowd (i.e., the “I/eye” of flaneur is not only a “first person”, it is also a third person). S/he is a bricoleur (a la Levi-Strauss), who assembles miscellaneous and divergent materials in contrast with typecast engineer, who works with a well-defined machine or explanatory theory following a predetermined blueprint of model. Bricoleur's work, then, falls outside the domain of enlightened science and pure reason. S/he is waiting for Godo, after whose appearance, her academico-administrative identity as linguist will be ceased to be existed—s/he would be no longer considered as a technical specialist in linguistics, but as a thinker-(s)talker, searching for stipulated wis(h)dom in different TRs. S/he is a propagator of plural future (heterotopias or plural utopias) that tolerates different TRs. Like Spinoza, s/he is not bothered about her hierarchic position in academics and prefers to be a spectacles- manufacturer; like Wittgenstein, s/he likes to withdraw herself out from the sounds and fury of the ritualistic academic seminars by covering her ears by both hands; like Diogenes, s/he could refuse royal sponsorship by saying, “Stand out of my light.” Her/his heterotopic proposals for building the tower of Babel as an art of resistance are as follows: Bhasa-smavaya (Co-operative of Ls): The (im)possible equality of different ELs on the basis of social co-operation or horizontal mutual aid instead of vertical governmentality. Bhasa- 78 samavaya could not exist without socio-economic samavaya. This concept of bhasa-samavaya can eliminate the “drain of L”. Heteroglossia/n-glossia: Bhasa-samavaya leads to polyphony—the celebration of many voices. It also leads to politics of tolerance as depicted in 1.6. Anti-Grammar: Anti-Grammar is a by-product of sub-alterns‟ non-collaborative attitude towards hegemonic role of standard language and its prescriptive grammar. All the alternatives attempts developed by the people by maintaining their “own” L trigger the birth of Anti-grammar or GrammEr‟. This new grammEr of tolerant rationality (opposed to violent technical rationality) is in opposition with the model of prescriptive grammar and hence it is an Anti-grammar, which is within the body of speaking subjects. As Cricket-bowlers like Kapil Dev or Walsh do not need to know the rules of Aerodynamics to swing the ball, so also L-learners do not need to know the fragmented rules of grammar to distort the Gestalt effect of language as a whole. Anti-grammar is equivalent to “grammEr”. The purpose of choosing these misspellings is to attest the perception of students, who often “misspell” this in analogy with other “-er”s and to represent their consciousness, which is antithetical to the existing form of grammar-education. This "anti- grammar =grammEr" comes out from the alternative experiments of deschooling, third/fourth theatre etc. Keywords: Praxis and Praxiology, *Bhasa-Samavaya (Language Co- operative or horizontal co-operation of S/HSs ), pleasure, polyphony, Heteroglossia (Bakhtin), Surplus labor, Communicative Competence (Habermas), heteropia, strategic essentialism, social engineering, *Anti-Grammar (=grammEr), horizontal mutual aid, Politics of tolerance and closing the violence of discourse, *n-glossia. 79 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Agamben, G. 1995. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. __________. 2005. State of Exception. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. Althusser, L. 1977. Lenin and his Philosophy. London: New Left Books. Altridge, D. Bannington, G. Young, R. (Ed.). 1987. Post-Structuralism and the Question of History. New York. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atkinson, E.R., Hilgard, R.C., R.L. Atkinson. 1975. Introduction to Psychology. Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Ltd. Atkinson, P. 1985. Language, Structure and Reproduction: An Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Mithuen. Barthes, R. 1975. The Pleasure of The Text. Oxford, Cambridge: Blackwell. Chomsky, N.A. 1972. Language and Mind. New York: Brace Jevanovich. Chomsky, N.A. 1976. Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith. Chomsky, N.A. 1980. Rules and Representations. Great Britain: Basil Blackwell Pub. Ltd. Chomsky, N.A. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praegar. Chomsky, N. A., Lasnik, H. 1991. Principles and Parameters Theory. Mimeographed copy. Chomsky, N. A. 1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge : MIT. Chomsky, N.A. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge : MIT Press. Chomsky, N. A.2000. The Architecture of Language. (ed. Mukherji, N., Patnaik, B.N, Agnihotri, R.) Delhi: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. A.2001. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge: MIT. Colomb, G. G., Turner.M.1989. “Computers, Literary Theory and Theory of Meaning”. Cohen, R. ed. The Future of Literary Theory. (pp.386-410). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 80 Coward, R., Ellis, J. 1977. Language and Materialism: Development in Semiology and the Theory of Subject. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dasgupta, P. 1989. Projective Syntax: Theory and Application . Pune: Deccan College. Derrida, J. 1976/1994. Of Grammatology. (Tr. G.C. Spivak) Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas. Derrida, J. 1978. Writing and difference. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Derrida, J. 1981. Dissemination. (Tr. B. Johnson). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Derrida, J. 1998. Monolingualism of the Other; or The Prothesis of Origin, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Dews, P. 1987. Logics of Disintegration. London: Verso. Feyerabend, P. 1994. Against Method. London: Verso. Foucault, M. 1973. The order of things: An Archaeology of Sciences. New York: Vintage Book. Foucault, M. 1977. Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews. Ed. Gordon, C. Random House, Inc. Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Book. Foucault, M. 1988. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the age of Reason. New York: Vintage Book. Foucault, M.1988. The History of Sexuality: an Introduction. Vol.1. New York: Vintage Book. Foucault, M. 1988. The Archaeology of Knowledge and Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books. Freud, S.1930.Civlization and its Discontent (Tr. Joan, R.). London: The Hogarth Press Ltd. Gadamar, H-G. 1975. Truth and Method. New York: Continuum. Gouldner, A.W.1979. The future of Intellectuals and the rise of the New Class. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Habermas, J. 1970. “Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence”, in Dreitzel, H.P. ed. Patterns of Communicative Behavior. New york: Macmillan. 81 Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Language as a Social Semiotic. London Edward Arnold. Hollis, M.1994. Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, R.H. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Khubchandani, L.M. 1997. Revisualizing Boundaries: A Plurilingual Ethos. New Delhi: Sage Publication. Kristeva, J. 1973. “The System of Speaking Subject”. London: Times Literary Supplement, 12 October 1973. (1249-50). Kristeva, J. 1986. “A Question of Subjectivity: An Interview” in Rice, P., Waugh, P. Ed. A Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. London: Edward Arnold. Lakatos, I.1976. Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge: CUP. Levi-Strauss, C. 1963. Structural Anthropology. USA: Basic Books. Levi-Strauss, C. 1970. The Raw and The Cooked. London. Edward Arnold. Lyotard,. 1979.The Post Modern Condition: A Report on knowledge. (Tr. Bannington, G., Massumi, B., 1984) Manchester University Press and Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press) Maclellan, D. 1979. Marxism after Marx. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Marcuse, H. 1964. One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrialized Society. London: ARK paperbacks. Mumford, L. 1967. The Myth of the Machine: Techniques and Human Development. London: Secker and Warburg. Nandy, A. ed. 1988. Science, Violence and hegemony. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Nandy, A. 1980/1995. Alternative Sciences: Authenticity and Creativity of two Indian Scientists. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Nandy, A. ed. 1995. The Savage Freud. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Nietzsche, F. 1956. The Genealogy of Morals. New York. Palmer, F. 1983. Grammar. Hermondsworth: Penguin. Pattanayak, D.P. 1981. Multilingualism and Mother-Tongue Education. (With a Forward 82 by Ivan Illich). Delhi: Oxford University Press. Peck, J. (Ed.) 1987. The Chomsky Reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Penrose, R. 1990. The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Penrose, R.1994.Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Radford, A. 1986. Transformational Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Russell, B.1950. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: Unwin. Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Searle, J.1980. “Minds, Brains and Programmes” in The Behavioural and Brain Sciences. Vol-III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverman, D., Torode, B. 1980. The Material Word: Some Theories of Language and Its Limits. London: Routledge and Kegan Paun. Volosinov, V.N. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Wittgenstein, L. 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. Cambridge: MIT Press. 83 Debaprasad Bandyopdhyay (b. 1965), through his 21 years journey in the realm of institutionalized academics did 27 different types of works, which are someway different from the earlier paradigms or, one might say that those works are not only mere reproductions of his inherited institutionalized cultural capital or a mimicry of a colonially imposed model that leads to intellectual anorexia or rather a type falsification of earlier paradigms. However, that might be not only a lofty claim but it also hid the fact that all our information and knowledge are socially accumulated knowledge that was, it is matter of regret, posed as private property through the sign © and the wisdom is rarely available. Bandyopadhyay’s works and projects are the products of his social milieu. Bandyopadhyay is a local sub-altern public sphere academician, who avoids the technical intelligentsia (followers of Sahib’s models and they are not committed to the persons who are accommodating surplus work-time to them by performing surplus labour) or inorganic intellectuals and thus fails to be a part of academic tribe and its subsequent socialization process. Of course, that socialization process does not lead to legendary Socratic dialogue. He is also a political activist though he has not affiliated to any political parties as he was always talking about the corporatization of political parties within the money-sign-based democratic system. He is a regular participant in TV and radio talk-shows and documentary films, street-corners’ talks and International seminars on socio-political, psychological, linguistic, environmental and economic issues. He also writes editorial columns in newspapers. He is also a part of parallel academics as it is found in West Bengal’s Little Magazine Movement, though that was not counted as the part his academic pursuit by his parent institute. His parent institute justifiably does not believe in the domain of parallel academics as this unorganized sector does not directly contribute in the transactions of formal/organized print capitalist eco-enemy paper-publication. Though the dissemination of knowledge is also observed in this space of these parallel academics as all these writings in public sphere simultaneously influence the classroom-discourse and some of them are translated into English, French and Italian. Not only that, Bandyopadhyay also sought engagement with the people, who, by supplying their surplus labour, are sustaining his livelihood. Bandyopadhyay, a linguist by training and a Ph.D.-holder (1996), a junior lecturer (1999-2011) in an autonomous central government institute in India, tries his best for those from he has received and is receiving the manifestation of surplus labour by executing some self-funded projects on economic issues in West Bengal, India. Recently he has got a consolation promotion (by default as there is no such post: “Junior Lecturer”, i.e. status quo is maintained) to the post of Assistant Professor. He has done following 27 research works: 1. Crippled Creativity: An inquiry into language, psyche, society 2. Valency of Bangla verb and problem of compound verbs 3. Archaeology of Bangla Grammar 4. Can computer speak? 5. Fuzzy logical expression in Bangla 6. Folklore and folk-language: myth or reality? 7. Historicism in the discourse of Bangla language and literature 8. Abhaba, ECP, deletion and trace 9. Svatva or my-ness and economic entitlememt 10. Translation studies 11. Masculinity studies 12. Yayati & Babur complex 13. Socio-economic surveys in agriculture and industry in West Bengal 14. Concept of body in indian philosophy and architecture 15. The concept of error (khyati) in mad-(wo)men’s language 16. The concept of perceptual time and grammatical time in bangla 17. Bangla calligraphy, language art and linguistic pedagogy 18. Wo(l)d spaces: non-existence of words 19. Anekanta Methods 20. Silenceme: silent other in linguistics 21. Imagined boudaries and pre-colonial indian imagiNATION 22. Making of the Indian philosophy of science 23. Segmenting the suprasegmentals : musicking in speaking 24. Interpreting genetic structure by deploying linguistic structure 25. Glottopolitics of linguistic subalternity or an agenda for planning from below 26. Semiotics of photography 27. Sociology of contemporary academics