Derivation of the Referential Meaning in Proverbs 1 -

Propositional Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, University of Sebha, Sebha

ABSTRACT
The derivation of meaning in proverbs is a complex tristratal process which
involves the derivation of the referential meaning of the proverb; its
prototypical meaning, and finally its contextual meaning. In this first article
in a series of articles dealing respectively with the derivation of 1. the
referential (literal) meaning; 2. the prototypical meaning; and 3. the
contextual meaning of the proverbs, an attempt has been made to look
at the referential meaning of the literal and figurative proverbs from a
ka:rmik linguistic perspective. In a Ka:mik Linguistic perspective, meaning is
an emergent experiential awareness; it is born out of dispositional
understanding mediated through the I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-
interdependent) networking of the formal, functional, and cognitive levels of
the contextual (lingual) actional reality for the construction of dispositional
reality. Such a shift in paradigm opens up a new way of deriving meaning of
proverbs and language as language for individual experience (ka:rmik
pragmatics or ka:rmatics) instead of language for communication (as
semantics) or language in use for social communication (pragmatics).

Symbols used in the Article

I-I-I Network Node; Impacts on; Gives Rise to by

Transformation;
Leads to in the Direction of the Arrow; Apparently Transforms
into;
∧ Reflected on (like an adjunct) ∨ Reflected in (like a quality);
Delink
intrer-categorially leads to as opposed to Intra-categorially
leads to
a:nushangikally gives rise to; inherently qualified ;
Through the Means of
Connecting Node in a Cyclic Network; Superimposed On
is analyzed
● Heart or Nucleus of the Circular/Cyclic Network
The Individual Consciousness (soul or the ji:va)

The Triad of Qualities [sattva (luminosity or cognitivity) giving knowledge of

activity; rajas (activity or analyticity) giving choice and pattern of activity by traits;

1|Page
and tamas (inertia or substantivity) giving inertia or materiality of activity by
va:sana:s] of Disposition.

Reversal of Order

I. Introduction
When proverbs are used, they are understood, misunderstood, or even not
understood depending on the abilities of the participants in the discourse.
When both the speaker and the hearer 1. know the referential, prototypical,
and contextual meanings correctly and at the same time, 2. the performance
(by the speaker) and the reception (by the hearers) are also successful, the
proverb is understood; on the other hand, if any one of them is defective
either in the knowledge of the meaning of the proverb or the
performance/reception, the proverb will be misunderstood (i.e., the
proverbial speech act fails); and finally, if the speaker is successful while the
hearer is defective in the knowledge or reception of the proverb and vice
versa, the proverb may not be understood at all (i.e., there will be no
proverbial perlocutionary force on the hearer) and communication breaks
down. For a successful encoding or decoding of a proverb, the following
conditions are necessary.

1. The meaning of the proverb as an expression (sentence or phrase)-in-

context (an expression that was formed by its use in a context but now a
potential utterance, but not an actual utterance as opposed to a sentence-
in- vacuo which is not so formed) should be clear to both the speaker and the
hearer.

2. The speaker should have the proverbial competence to perform the

utterance of the proverb appropriately in an actual world and performed it
accordingly.

3. The hearer should have the proverbial inference (decoding) ability and
inferred it accordingly.

If any of the abilities are lacking in the participants, the use of the proverb
will be a failure, and if all of them are present, it will be a successful
performance. Therefore, it is essential to know why and how proverbs mean
what they mean when and where and what is the process of their use and
inference.

In this first article dealing with the derivation of meaning in proverbs, how
the referential meaning or the literal meaning of a proverb is computed is
analyzed from a formal linguistic perspective which is later integrated into its
analysis of the prototypical meaning and contextual meaning of the
proverbs.
 II. Literature Review
A large volume of literature is available on the derivation of meaning in
proverbs (see Mieder: 1982, 90, 93 for extensive references). However, their
meaning is not derived from a tristratal perspective as in the Ka:rmik
Linguistic Paradigm. In the general literature on semantics and pragmatics,
proverbs as a special topic have not been studied extensively. For example,
in Lyons (1979 a, b), Vanderveken (1990, 91), and Searle (1969, 79 a, b)
which are seminal works on semantics and pragmatics, no specific chapters
are allocated to discuss the meaning proverbs as a genre. Leech (1983)
examines and analyses meaning in a Gricean perspective and extends it to
his own means-ends model by adapting the Hallidayan metafunctions of
language (interpersonal, ideational, and textual). In Bhuvaneswar (2000 a-d),
an attempt has been made to study the semantics of proverbs from a formal
linguistic perspective and integrate it into the ka:rmik linguistic perspective
of considering meaning as dispositional, experiential (ka:rmik) meaning.
Such a motivation is further supported by proverbial discourse analysis
(Bhuvaneswar 1998, 99, 2010) and general discourse analysis (Schiffrin
1994; Berry 1981 a, b, c). In this paradigm, the meaning of proverbs is
derived from their referential, prototypical, and contextual meaning
perspectives and integrated into a unified experiential meaning of the
proverb used in a context in a cause-means-effect analysis. In such a
perspective, meaning is not complete unless and otherwise all the formal,
functional, and cognitive planes as well as the cognitive,
socioculturalspiritual, and contextual actional realities of the concerned
lingual action (proverbial action) are integrated into a unified experiential
meaning. The formal, functional, and cognitive linguistic models are atomic
and therefore inadequate to provide such a description. In a Ka:mik
Linguistic perspective, meaning is an emergent (w)holistic experiential
awareness; it is born out of dispositional understanding mediated through
the I-I-I (interconnected-interrelated-interdependent) networking of the
formal, functional, and semantic levels of the contextual (lingual) actional
reality for the construction of dispositional reality. In such a process,
meaning is dispositionally generated, specified, directed, and materialized
through its systematic and holorchical mediation through the cognitive and
socioculturalspiritual realities in its context of lingual action. Hence, the
ka:rmik linguistic paradigm integrates all these planes into a unified
framework and therefore it is claimed that it is better suited to derive the
meaning in a single framework.

III. Derivation of the Referential Meaning in Proverbs: A

Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach

A. Propositional Meaning in Proverbs: Its Derivation

Proverbs have different meanings. First, as an expression (a phrase, a
sentence, or even more than one sentence including Wellerisms), it has a
referential (literal) meaning. A literal meaning is the expressional
meaning derived from the collective literary meaning of all the words in the
expression. A literary meaning is derived not only from literal proverbs such
as Honesty is the best policy; It is easier to forgive than forget; Reason
succeeds where force fails; etc. but also figurative proverbs such as Faraway
cows have long horns; A dead dog never bites; Sleeping cats catch no mice;
etc. Let us take the following examples for an illustration of their literal
meaning.

1 Set: Literal Proverbs

i. Honesty is the best policy.
ii. A little learning is a dangerous thing.
iii. That must be true which all men say?
iv. When in doubt, leave it out.
v. Better late than never.

In Set 1, the literal meaning of the sentences is the sentence-in-context

meaning of the proverb in a possible world (because the proverb is not yet
used in a real world). For example, A little learning is a dangerous thing has
the meaning with the proposition P that a little learning is a dangerous thing
as an assertion. This is its literal or referential meaning. When the proverb is
used as an utterance, for example, in the following Indian English
conversation that took place between two brothers (A: elder; B: younger) in a
real world– A injured his leg badly while taking his moped up the footsteps
into the house and got a bandage from an allopath; after five days he took a
dose of Natrum Mur 200 on his own:

A: I thought a higher dose of Natrum Mur will heal my bruise quickly, but
now, all
over my body, I got black pigmentation.

B: A little learning is a dangerous thing. Consult a qualified homeopath

immediately. It is not good to take medicines without proper
knowledge.

A little learning is a dangerous thing means exactly that much with reference
to the use of medicines, i.e., an incomplete knowledge (about homoeopathic
medicines) is dangerous as dispositionally cognized by the speaker
irrespective of its truth value -- the user might or might not have used the
medicine according to the science of homoeopathy -- because it may not be
adequate enough to treat an illness and therefore such an inadequate
knowledge may lead to problems instead of solving the problem; hence, it is
prohibited. To put it technically, the literal meaning of the proverb is the
same as the utterance meaning of the same proverb – of course, it is
contextually extended to imply knowledge about homoeopathic medicines,
giving its third level meaning which is the contextual meaning – the meaning
in its context of use. Proverbs such as these whose literal (sentence or
referential) meaning and utterance meaning are the same are called direct
(as opposed to indirect) proverbial speech acts. This meaning is captured
in the following equation (1):
(1) Proverbial Meaning :
Literal (Referential or Sentence) Meaning Utterance Meaning
Proverb Meaning

2 Set: Figurative Proverbs

There are many types of proverbs which contain figures of speech such as
simile, hyperbole, paradox, metaphor, etc. A few examples are discussed
below to arrive at a generalization about the meaning in figurative proverbs.

2.1. Similaic Proverbs

i. News spreads like wild fire.
ii. Calumny is like coal – it either burns you or besmirches you.
iii. Money, like promises, is easier made than kept.
iv. Like mother, like daughter.
v. Disgraces are like cherries: one draws another.

In 2.1. Similaic Proverbs, we have examples of proverbs whose literal

(sentence or referential) meaning is dependent on the figurative meaning of
the sentence. For example, the sentence-in-context meaning of the proverb
News spreads like wild fire is first, dependent on the figurative meaning
(simile) used in the proverb by implicature from the general and cultural
knowledge at the internal structural level. Like wild fire is the figure of
speech (simile) used in the proverb. That characteristic property which is
culturally associated with wild fire, namely, its spreading rapidly is first
attributed to wild fire – this property is generally selected out of a number of
other properties from its dispositional general cognition as a common and
familiar property which sticks out prominently (as salient). Second, this
characteristic property is transferred into the simile; and finally, the sentence
is endowed with that meaning. It is shown in the following equation (2) in
three stages.

(2) Proverb Meaning of News spreads like wild fire:

Stage I
a. News spreads [like wild fire]
S V A (Prepositional Phrase of
Manner)
b. News spreads [like wild fire spreads]
c. Wild fire spreads …. How? Very rapidly

Stage II
 Adding this dispositionally chosen characteristic as a culturally chosen
characteristic into the sentence, we get:
d. News spreads like wild fire spreads very rapidly.
Stage III
Now if we delete the Adverbial like wild fire and retain the characteristic
property very rapidly (instantaneously), we get:

e. News spreads very rapidly.

[This is its Prototypical Meaning, the second higher level meaning, which is
approximately the paraphrased meaning.]

This is the meaning by paraphrase. But the hearer does not understand the
proverb with this paraphrased meaning; he understands the proverb to mean
this (2e) via the image but not independently of the image. Had the
paraphrased meaning only is meant, then the proverb would not have been
coined to be so with the image by violating the Gricean Maxims of Quantity
(stating more than what is required by giving the additional information
through the simile ‘like wild fire’) and Manner (by not being brief; by being
obscure). The very fact that there is an image which violates the Cooperative
Principle proves that it has a function to serve – this function here is either a
function of expressing the abstract meaning (of spreading so quickly) by a
concrete example as wild fire (does) for which there is no equivalent word; or
a function of creating aesthetic appeal by evoking a powerful image of wild
fire. So as this paraphrased meaning is derived, it is derived a:nushangikally
(the effect inheriting the cause like the pot inheriting the clay) via the image
in three stages as follows:
1 2 (Literal or
Referential Meaning)
f. News spreads like wild fire News spreads like wild fire
which spreads very rapidly (+News spreads like wild fire)
3 (Prototypical Meaning)
News spreads very rapidly [+ like wild fire spreads very rapidly +
(like wild fire)]

Therefore, if this proverb is used in a real world, its utterance meaning has to
be derived via its figurative meaning, if there is any such meaning. Most
importantly, this figurative meaning should be pro-culturally derived; if not,
its appropriate meaning will not be arrived at. For example, wild fire also
destroys the flora and the fauna in the wild (jungle or bush land) and so the
meaning can as well be News spreads like wild fire which ruins many people
around the hearers of the news which is not the intended meaning of the
proverb. Just like a literal proverb, the meaning of the proverb is determined
from the meaning of the words collectively but pro-culturally through
salience. That means that the literal (referential) meaning in proverbs is
simply not literal but socioculturalspiritually literal.
In a similar way, in the proverb More like the devil than St. Laurence, unless
and otherwise we know what characteristics are culturally bestowed on devil
and St. Laurence, we will not be able to construct the meaning of the proverb
as a sentence-in-context in a possible world. Since proverbs are thoroughly
culture bound, meaning in proverbs is intrinsically culture specific and a lack
of cultural knowledge causes a failure in understanding the meaning of the
proverb. Examples such as the ones given above are relatively simple
because of the familiarity of the words or concepts, but some proverbs are
very difficult to understand in view of the cultural obscurity of the proposition
in the proverb. Similaic proverbs such as As wise as Waltham’s calf in English
or Parama:nandayya sishyulu la:ga ‘Like Parama:nandayya’s disciples’ in
Telugu are difficult proverbs in the sense that they require more in depth
knowledge of the culture in a society. Even if we know the cultural referents
such as Waltham or Parama:nandayya, there is no guarantee that the
meaning can be correctly derived. For example, one may know about
Waltham but that does not give us any clue about the proverb; unless we
know that his calf ran a long distance to drink milk from a bull and came
back in vain, we will not be in a position to derive its meaning. In a similar
way, even if we know about Parama:nandayya (who is a learned scholar) but
not about his disciples (who always behaved stupidly), we will not be able to
understand the proverb meaning. Therefore, not only the salient meaning
chosen by the culture but also the knowledge of the legends associated with
the words to arrive at the salient meaning is required to calculate the
implicature correctly.

(3a) Similaic Proverb Meaning:

Literal Meaning Similaic Meaning (+ Literal Meaning)
Expanded Similaic Meaning (+ Similaic Meaning + Literal Meaning)

In the case of similaic proverbs, the same principle of comparison is used to

clarify and elaborate the social practice which can be categorially
instantiated in the conduct of the socioculturalspiritual living of the proverb
community and facilitate the appropriate use of the proverb to construct the
similaic dispositional (ka:rmik) reality of the categorial social practice.

(3b) Simile - Clarification and Elaboration of the Social Practice -

Clarified and Elaborated Prototypical Practice

2.2: Hyperbolical Proverbs

i. The buzz of a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar.
ii. Deviate an inch, lose a thousand miles.
iii. With seven nurses a child will be without eyes.
iv. The coward dies many times.
v. Don’t make a mountain of a molehill.
The referential meaning of these hyperbolical proverbs is simply the
meaning of the words taken collectively. For example, the proverb Deviate
an inch, lose a thousand miles means the P that You deviate an inch, you
lose a thousand miles; the proverb The coward dies many times means the P
that The coward dies many times; and so on. The hyperbole is a part of the
referential meaning a:nushangikally inherited from the referential meaning.

(4a) Proverb Meaning:

Literal Meaning Hyperbolical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)
Expanded Hyperbolical Meaning [+Hyperbolical Meaning (+Literal
Meaning)]

In the case of hyperbolical proverbs, the same principle of overstatement to

attract the attention by rousing the interest of the hearer is used as pointed
out by Leech (1983: 145); here, the maxim of quality (truth value) is violated
to achieve the effect; alternatively, it is also used to highlight the social
practice by increasing the prominence through the means of the hyperbole –
the hyperbole is used as a means to achieve the goal of highlighting the
social practice; the second use seems to be more applicable in the formation
of proverbs:
(4b) Hyperbole – Interest Arousal – Highlighted Prototypical Social
Practice
However, the hyperbole is on the social practice which can be categorially
instantiated in the conduct of the socioculturalspiritual living of the proverb
community and facilitate the appropriate use of the proverb to construct the
hyperbolical dispositional (ka:rmik) reality of the categorial social practice.

In this set, we also have sentences which are hyperbolical on the one hand
and metaphorical on the other hand. All of them taken literally do not fit the
world. Let us take an example. In the first sentence of The buzz of a
mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar, a buzz (a property of sound) has
no property of drowning (a property of a liquid); second, an ocean cannot
roar, since roaring is a quality of an animate object such as an animal like a
lion; third, the sound made by the buzz of a mosquito is many, many
decibels less than that of the sound of an ocean’s wave (breaking on the
shore). All these states of affairs in the world do not fit with the sentence
meaning. Yet, this is a sentence-in-context in addition to a sentence in
vacuo. Then, how is the meaning derived by a speaker to mean “something”
and how does the hearer decode the “something”. Surely, there must be a
process by which the encoding should correspond with decoding and vice
versa. In order to do so, a hearer must first of all know the use of figurative
language whose conventions are equally shared by any member of the
proverb community without which successful communication fails. Once he
understands this convention, he tries to derive the meaning either
algorithmically (by one by one in a linear process, if he has no thorough
knowledge about the proverb), or heuristically (by trial and error, if he has a
partial knowledge of the proverb), or automatically (by correct application, if
he has complete knowledge about the proverb) – this is a very important
cognitive processing technique.

In the case of this proverb, the hearer has to get the meaning of the proverb
in three successive stages of computation of the:
1. referential meaning;
2. figurative meaning; and
3. combined meaning by integration and binding.

In the first stage, the referential meaning of the proverb is interpreted and
cognized to be the collective meaning of all the words in the sentence form.
That is to say that the referential meaning of the proverb is the propositional
meaning P that The buzz of a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar as an
assertion.

As soon as he arrives at the propositional meaning P that The buzz of a

mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar as an assertion, he realizes that
there is no fit between the state of affairs given in the sentence and the real
world but the sentence cannot be wrong since the speaker is following the
Cooperative Principle (CP) of Grice. Therefore, he interprets the sentence as
a proverb and the literal meaning as a figurative meaning based on the CP –
to do so he has the knowledge of such a linguistic convention in the society –
and comes to the intuitive understanding that it is a hyperbolical assertion
since the truth condition of the assertion is not satisfied: The buzz of a
mosquito cannot drown out the ocean’s roar. Again, a buzz cannot drown a
roar since sound cannot have the property of drowning and hence it should
be metaphorical (synaesthesia). The hearer unpacks the metaphorical
meaning and paraphrases it as equivalent to “make… inaudible”/
“suppresses”: The buzz of a mosquito can make the ocean’s roar inaudible.
Finally, he combines the meataphorical and hyperbolical meaning and
integrates them into the literal meaning as shown below.

(4c) Proverb Meaning:

Literal Meaning Hyperbolical Meaning (+ Literal Meaning)
Metaphorical Meaning (+ Literal Meaning + Hyperbolical Meaning)
Expanded Figurative Meaning [+Metaphorical Meaning +
Hyperbolical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)]
In formal linguistic analysis, there is a separation between literal and
figurative meanings since it is atomic in its approach but in ka:rmik
linguistics, they are not separated but interconnected-interrelated-
interdependent since it is a holistic approach: when the proverb The buzz of
a mosquito can drown out the ocean’s roar is used, it means all the literal,
figurative, and the combined meanings together as a whole in a single unit
called the cogneme but not separately or in parallel. Let us call this the
Wholistic Meaning to distinguish it from the holistic meaning. What is
more, this cogneme is open-ended and expands, integrates, and binds the
referential into the prototypical into the contextual meaning also in it as it is
used in an exchange in a context and then leads to the experience of the
results of action as the Experiential Meaning. This experiential meaning is
derived as the Ka:rmik Meaning through Language as a Means. From this
ka:rmik meaning, proverbial ka:rmik reality is constructed when a
proverb is used in an exchange/discourse; and when they are remembered
by individuals, or stored in the collective memory of a proverb community, or
recorded in books, they are done so as proverbial-ka:rmik-reality-
realizing-linguistic-means. This is with reference to the use of language
as proverbs for the construction of (proverbial) ka:rmik reality.

These concepts are captured succinctly in equations as follows:

(4d) Typification of Meaning:
Literal Meaning / Figurative Meaning Literary Meaning (+
Figurative Meaning)
Atomic Meaning Holistic Meaning

Literal as the Figurative as the Combined Meaning as a Cogneme

Wholistic Meaning (Ka:rmik Meaning)

OR

Literal Meaning

Figurative Meaning Combined Meaning

Cogneme

Experiential Meaning Ka:rmik Meaning

Legend: Disposition; ● Consciousness; gives rise to by

transformation;
leads to; reciprocally leads to; inter-
categorially leads to;
● Dispositionally-Qualified- Consciousness
(D.Q.E.)

(4e)
Meaning of a Proverb:
i. Atomic Meaning:
 a. Literal Meaning / Figurative Meaning
b. Referential Meaning / Prototypical Meaning / Contextual Meaning

ii. Holistic Meaning:

a. Literal Meaning + Figurative Meaning
b. [Referential Meaning + Prototypical Meaning + Contextual
Meaning]

iii. Wholistic Meaning (= Ka:rmik Meaning)

a. Literal Meaning as Figurative Meaning as Combined Meaning as a
Cogneme
b. [Referential Meaning as Prototypical Meaning as Contextual
Meaning as a Cogneme
= Experiential Meaning]

(4f)

[Ka:rmik Impulsion (Experiential)] [Dispositional Impulsion

(Choice of Action)
Cognitive Impulsion (Deliberation of Action)
Conceptual Impulsion (Binding of Action)
Actional Impulsion (for Materialization of Action): Will]
(gives rise to)
Action (Mental/Vocal (Proverbial)/Physical)
[Karma is an experiential principle of cause-effect reality in KLT and is
realized through disposition (svabha:vam) which gives rise to choice of
activity, impressionality of activity (va:sana:s) which gives rise to the
pattern of the concerned activity, and experientiality of activity
(bho:gam) which gives rise to the ultimate experience of action.]

(4g)
Action (Proverbial Utterance) [Deliberation of Proverbial
Meaning Interpretation Experience of the Proverbial
Meaning]
Realization of Ka:rmik Meaning

(5)
a. Consciousness (C) ∧ Karma (K) K – Qualified - C.
OR ● ∧ K K
●

b. K – Qualified - C ∧ Disposition (D) C – Qualified - D.

OR K ● ∧
●
c. C.Q.D. ∧ Context Desire Effort Differentiated
Awareness Conception
[d. Trait ∨ Knolwledge ∨ Va:sana Conception]
[Legend : ∧ Reflected on (like an adjunct) ∨ Reflected in (like a
quality)]

e. Conception:
Objectification (This and That - Cognition) Classification (So
and So - System / Paradigm) Qualification (Such and Such -
Structure)
(see the conceptual axis graph for a graphic representation of Conception in
Bhuvaneswar 2009 b)
It has been shown here once again to represent the Objectification-
Classification-Qualification process

P E
A M
R E CONCEPT
CLASSIFICATION A N
D G OBJECTIFICATION
I O
G C
M
SYNTAGM
Disposition
QUALIFICATION

Graph 1: The Triaxial Graph of Conceptual Process in Ka:rmik Linguistic

Theory (KLT)

Consciousness is the unchangeable substratum of Pure Awareness (Static

Consciousness) and gives rise to Pure Cognition (Static Cognition). When it is
charged with Karma, it becomes Karma-Qualified-
Consciousness/Awareness/Cognition and gives rise to Disposition. Again,
when Consciousness is charged with Disposition, it becomes Disposition-
Qualified-Consciousness and gives rise to Disposition-Qualified-
Awareness/Cognition. Conception of an Object/State of Being/Action is an
apparent transformation of the Karma-Qualified-Cognition (K.Q.Cog.) which is
the Ultimate Cause into Dispositional- Qualified-Cognition (D.Q.Cog) which is
the Immediate Cause into the cognition of this and that as so and so in such
and such a manner as the conception (which is the means) into the
experiential cognition (which is the effect). The K.Q.Cog is the invisible cause
of D.Q.Cog. which is inferential. D.Q.Cog. remains as it is like light but
projects a conception on it by apparently transforming the sides of the
triangle of disposition into a star which can have many rays and so twinkles
(1…n) depending upon the nature of conception that gives rise to the
cogneme.

Basically, there are three components to disposition (Traits-Knowledge-

Va:sana) and Traits are further divided into the three qualities of Sattva
(Cognitivity or Luminosity) -Rajas (activity)-Tamas (Inertia). In equilibrium, all
these three qualities are static and do not create any disturbance in the
awareness of the Dispositionally-Qualified-Consciousness. To explain it
further, the state of cognition is static and remains inactive and therefore
remains as the basic cognition without any projections. Once the qualities
get disturbed by the impact of knowledge gained from sensory perception in
the immediate context/or previous experience (memory and va:sana:s), they
act upon the mind and stir the cognition into activity and thus make it
kinetic. Consequently, there will be a change in the state of rest of
cognition giving rise to an apparent transformation of blank cognition
(which is like a rock) into a cognition of conception of this and that as so and
so in such and such a manner (which is like the figure to be sculptured on
the rock) under the influence of disposition which chooses the specific figure
like the coloured crystals in a kaleidoscope producing different colours under
their influence. Conceptualization is thus dispositionally generated,
specified, directed and materialized. Finally, the concept is formed to be
so and the state of cognition is synoptic (which is like the finished
sculpture). Even though Disposition has no power of cognition, by virtue of
being qualified by Consciousness, it springs into action and generates the
specific cognition.

There is an interesting Principle of Reversal of Order in cognition also. First,

Disposition qualifies Consciousness to make it Dispositionally-qualified-
Consciousness (DQC); second, by a reversal of order, Consciousness qualifies
Disposition to make it Consciousness- qualified –Disposition (CQD); third, this
CQD is the one that produces phenomenal conceptualization and its
cognition.

(5f) D + C DQC CQD Dispositional Conceptualization of

Lingual Action

The transformation from static-to-kinetic-to-synoptic cognition is generally

automatic in casual conversation and fast writing but can be heuristic or
algorithmic in cultivated or contemplative or creative thinking. After the
conceptualization of the action, it is performed to get the desire fulfilled and
eventually the speaker experiences the result of the action as experiential
meaning as ka:rmik meaning, in this case, as proverbial-action-experience-
meaning as proverbial ka:rmik meaning. As he experiences the meaning, the
state of cognition is experiential and the awareness is experiential
awareness (i.e., experience resulting from awareness and not awareness for
experience).
 (5g:1 and 2) Evolution of Cognition:

…
1. ● ● …
.
Static Dispositional Kinetic . Dispositional
Synoptic Dispsoitional
Cognition Conception
Concept

Experiential Dispositional (Ka:rmik) Concept

Experiential Cognition
Experience of Action (Experiential Awareness).

2. Causal Cognition of Action Dispositional Cognition

of Action
Cognition of Action Experiential Cognition of
Action

[ intrer-categorially leads to as opposed to (Intra-

categorially) leads to]

2. 3: Parodoxical Proverbs
i. What is hard to bear is sweet to remember.
ii. The greatest hate comes from the greatest love.
iii. So near and yet so far.
iv. Many a good cow has a bad calf.
v. He that speaks ill of the mare will buy her.
vi. Life is hard by the yard, but by the inch, life’s a cinch.
vii. The only way to save an hour is spend it wisely.
viii. Least said, soonest mended.
ix. A good offence is the best defence.

As observed in the case of the hyperbolical proverbs, the referential meaning

is simply the meaning of the words taken collectively. For example, the
proverb What is hard to bear is sweet to remember means the proposition P
that What is hard to bear is sweet to remember; and so on in the case of
other proverbs also. The paradox is a part of the referential meaning
a:nushangikally inherited from the referential meaning.
(6) Proverb Meaning:
Literal Meaning Paradoxical Meaning (+Literal Meaning)
 Expanded Paradoxical Meaning [+Paradoxical Meaning (+Literal
Meaning)]
The paradoxical meaning is derived by a socioculturalspiritual implicature of
the shared knowledge of the proverb community. Otherwise, a proverb like A
good offence is the best defence becomes illocutionarily impossible. The
assertion of an offence implies an attack and not defence. Therefore, offence
cannot be defence. Consequently, it is illogical. However, if it is understood
that the meaning has a presupposition: That defending oneself is best
accomplished by attacking, the meaning becomes logical. By violating the
Maxim of Quality via the socioculturalspiritual knowledge of the proverb
community and embedding the directly paradoxical pair of words such as
hate and love, good and bad, save and spend, etc., or indirectly paradoxical
practices such as speak ill and buy, least said and soonest mended, etc.,
the concerned social practice is highlighted by increasing the prominence
through the means of the paradox – the paradox is used as a means to
achieve the goal of highlighting the social practice; alternatively, as
explained in the case of the hyperbolical proverbs, paradox is used to attract
the attention of the hearer by rousing his interest. The second function of
aesthetic appeal seems to be complementary to the first function of
highlighting the social practice in the formation of proverbs. From a synoptic
perspective, different functions are interconnected-interrelated-
interdependent and they may be linear, parallel, or radial.

2. 4: Metaphorical Proverbs
2.4.1: Literal Practices as Metaphorical Proverbs
i. Do not look a gift horse in the mouth.
ii. An early bird catches the worm.
iii. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
iv. You scratch my back; I scratch your back.

2.4.2: Metaphorical Words in Proverbs

i. What is the good of a fair apple if it has a worm in its heart?
ii. Don’t monkey with the bandwagon if you cannot play the horn.
iii. If the beard were all, the goat might preach.
iv. Every dog is a lion at home.
In the 2.4 Set, we have the so-called metaphorical proverbs which are
predominant in the proverbial genre. Surprisingly, most of these proverbs in
vacuo cannot be considered metaphorical in the first instance. For example,
Do not look a gift horse in the mouth simply means a directive to not look a
gift horse in the mouth; An early bird catches the worm means an assertion
stating a belief that P (where P= that an early bird catches the worm); and
What is the good of a fair apple if it has a worm in its heart? is a rhetorical
question with a negative assertion that P (where P= if it has a worm in its
heart). These sentences even as sentences- in – contexts in a possible world
need not necessarily be proverbs. For example, in the context of a possible
world, where one presents a horse to another – for instance as I was
presented horses by the Shehu of Borno, the Waziri of Borno, and the
Governor of Borno, Nigeria – and the receiver of the gift looks into the mouth
– it is a sociocultural practice to examine the teeth of a horse to determine
its age and thus assess its value: the younger the horse, the better its value
- the third person witnessing the action may say this sentence: Don’t look a
gift horse in the mouth. [In the mouth is a synecdoche for teeth – this use is
also not metaphorical.
[Other simple examples are the common social animal practices in proverbs
such as You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink; A scary
horse needs a stout bridle; A boisterous horse requires a boisterous bridle
(British). These proverbs have a real animal social practice as their
propositional content and the proverbs are literal in their content but turned
metaphorical in their application. In the case of You scratch my back; I
scratch your back, it is a human social practice.]

In such a context of use in a possible world, the utterance need not have the
force of a proverb if the speaker intended the utterance only as literal advice
or command, according to the custom. In such a case it means the same as a
proverb but not in the same manner. The meaning of the utterance is not
derived via the frozen cultural prototypical illocutionary force of the meaning
but as an individual opinion following the politeness principle. Such
utterances cannot be used metaphorically in other contexts – they are not
sortally incorrect. For example, one cannot say this sentence when you
receive a pen as a gift; if you say it, it is understood as a proverb via the
prototypical meaning. In other words all such utterances need not be
proverbs even though all proverbs can be used in such contexts exactly with
the same wording. Hence there is an asymmetric relationship between such
utterances and proverbs. That is why, a sentence like Don’t stare (at) a
guest in the house is not a proverb even though it is also a similar piece of
cultural advice in a similar syntactic structure.
When such a use is taken as a categorial practice and is made the exemplar
of such a social practice of condemning the evaluation of gifts as impolite, it
gains the status of a prototypical practice, consequently gaining a new
meaning that contains the core features of the categorial practice without
the image-meaning.
[In literal proverbs, there is no image-meaning and therefore the referential
meaning is equal to the prototypical meaning:
(7) Literal Proverbs: Referential Meaning = Prototypical meaning.]
Here, the status of the same practice is apparently transformed by
superimposition (vivartam by adhya:sa) from an instance of an individual
practice to an instance of a categorial practice by looking at it as a member
of such similar categories of practices to an instance of a prototypical
practice by gradual evolution (karma srushti) in a linear, temporal sequence.
In terms of cognition, an expressed meaning in the text of the proverb
embodying the individual practice evolves into a prototypical meaning
embodying an evolved meaning which when used in a context becomes the
contextual meaning embodying an emergent meaning.

(8) a. Individual Practice

Categorial Practice
Looking at the teeth of horse gifted Looking at the teeth
of a horse gifted
Prototypical Practice
Looking at the contents of a present

b. Referential Meaning Categorial

Meaning
Don’t look at the teeth of a gift horse Don’t look at the
teeth of a gift horse
Prototypical Meaning
Don’t evaluate the contents of a present

c. Expressed Meaning Evolved Meaning Emergent

Meaning.
OF a social practice THROUGH social practices IN a
contextual social practice
(Referential Meaning) (Prototypical Meaning) (Contextual
Meaning)
If the same sentence Do not look a gift horse in the mouth is considered a
sentence in a context in a possible world situation, other than the original
context of the proverb (i.e., a situation in which one looks into the mouth of a
gift horse), it will be a proverb in that context with that semantic
interpretation. That is to say that this utterance will be considered a cultural
practice and its referential meaning as such will be extended to derive its
prototypical meaning ‘that it is not good manners to evaluate a gift in terms
of its worth’ and furthermore, it will be superimposed on the categorial
action in the context to derive its final contextual meaning. Therefore, it is a
negative condition that proverbs used in their original context (from which
the proverb took off) need not be proverbial:

(9) a. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents a horse)

B: NV (looks in the mouth and checks the teeth)
C: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
[literal advice in the form of a sortally correct sentence as not a proverb;
with a falling intonation on ‘in the mouth]

b. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents an ordinary horse)

B: How much is this?
 C: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
[a sortally incorrect sentence as metaphorical advice as a proverb]

c. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents an ordinary shirt)

B: How much is this?
C: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.
[a proverb as metaphorical advice]

d. A: Non-Verbal Action (presents a horse)

B: NV (looks in the mouth and checks the teeth)
C: ‘Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’.
[a sortally incorrect sentence citation of a proverb; with a rising intonation
starting from ‘Don’t……’]

In (9a), the sentence-in-context as an utterance is not a proverb because it

had not yet become a proverb by cultural authorization whereas in (9d), the
already formed proverb is used in the context as an utterance by citation to
contextually mean the prototypical meaning but not merely the referential
meaning and so it can be considered a proverb.

The vivartam (apparent transformation) of an individual practice into a

categorial practice is by gradual evolution (krama srushti); it is generally
but not necessarily achieved when an individual uses this practice as a
means to interpret an unfamiliar (known to the society but not familiar) /
unknown (not yet discovered) /abstract practice or phenomenon by using it
as a simile. Later on, as this comparison/contrast is used and polished by
many individuals during the course of time and gains currency as a popular
illustration of the practice, it achieves the status of a standard example and
becomes salient. In the mean time, all other practices which are similar to
this practice are categorized as belonging to a class or group. By this
categorization, it becomes a categorial practice and again as a salient
practice, it is chosen as the exemplar par excellence of all other practices
which are classed with this practice. Hence, it becomes a prototypical
practice for all the other categorial practices by gradual evolution.

This is an interesting Process of Reversal of Order (indicated by / )

by the Principle of Individual – Contextual - Collective Standardization
observed in many ka:rmik linguistic processes. It offers an important
counter-evidence to the Innateness Hypothesis of Chomsky or Language as
Social Action of Halliday. First, an action is performed by a dispositional
choice; second, it is dispositionally used to interpret other similar practices
that are obtained in the conduct of living of the proverb community in which
it is used; third, as it is used to do so, all such similar practices are grouped
together as a class or category; and finally, this particular practice, by virtue
of being used as a means to interpret other similar practices, becomes
prominent or salient and is dispositionally chosen to interpret and represent
all other such similar practices that may occur in future. Salience of this
practice emerged out of its popular dispositional choice and not out of its
intrinsic value – for example, gold is still salient in our modern cultures even
though platinum is a nobler metal than gold in the periodic table; so also A
bird in the hand is worth two in the bush is salient whereas A pig in the pen
is worth two in the market is not in the English proverb community; green in
Distant hills are green in English is salient but not in Telugu where it is soft:
Du:rapu (far away) kondalu (hills) nunupu (soft) ‘Distant hills are soft’. In
other words, first it is dispositionally categorized, and next it is
dispositionally used to categorize bringing about a reversal in its use:

(10) a. Action Categorial Action Salient Action

Prototypical Action

b. Action Prototypical Action Categorial Action

An important point to note is the way in which proverbs are formed as

language. The Principles of Awareness, Cognition, Analyticity, Memory, and
Vocalization, and Disposition, Action and its Experience are all innate to
every human being. That is why we find them universally across all places,
and races governed by the Universal Sciences of Action (physics, chemistry,
and mathematics), Living (physiology, psychology, cognitive science, and
medicine), and Lingual Action (linguistics) – see Bhuvaneswar 2009 a for a
detailed explanation of these concepts. However, there is no universal
language but many languages in practice (Samskrit, Hebrew,
Telugu, Hixkaryana, etc). The hardware for production of languages is
genetic but the software of a language is dispositionally created in a context
of living. Just as human beings have developed many cultures, and religions,
so also many languages must have been developed by them according to
these Universal Sciences of Action, Living, and Lingual Action. We can see
this kind of evolution from a historical study of various language phenomena
such as the change in the syntactic typology of English from SOV to SVO;
loss of cases; semantic changes; new word –formation processes, etc. as well
as the emergence of new languages from their old predecessors.

2.4.3. Motivation of Metaphoricity in Proverbs

a. Principle of Least Effort in Formation of a Proverb

One way to motivate the formation of metaphorical proverbs is through
cognitive processing patterns: Human beings tend to give preference to
simplicity over complexity in cognitive processing by the Principle of Least
Effort, in the absence of an easily available concept. Here, the prototype can
be cognized with effort but the users are lazy to do so. For example, an
already available social practice can be easily extended to other social
practices for categorization by the Principle of Productive Extension of
Variables (PEV) in which an already existing variable (obtained by ECV) is
taken as the base and modified either at the paradigmatic or syntagmatic
levels by dispositional creativity. For example, in affixation, the paradigm is
shifted from, say, prefixation to suffixation or circumfixation in word-
formation; in semantics, the meaning of an existing word is extended to
cover other meanings leading to polysemy (e.g., party having many
meanings: tea-party; congress party); similarly, a stitch in time saves nine is
extended to be metaphorical and made a prototype. This principle can be
overruled in favour of other principles such as the Principles of
Aesthetic/Functional/Structural Appeals according to the dispositionality of
the users: as the workman, so is his work.

b. Complexity in Prototypicalization
Another way to motivate the formation of proverbs is through the complexity
in categorization and derivation of a prototype:
i. The concerned prototypical practice is vague and invisible to naked
cognition and requires microscopic cognition through the instrumentality
of a metaphorical social practice and hence difficult to prototypicalize by
paraphrase; (e.g., Don’t expect three legs on a cat when you know he
has four; Revenge is like biting a dog because he bit you; as wise as
Waltham’s calf). In such formations, the derivation of the prototypical
meaning requires effort and the image is generally a complex category
prototype;
ii. so also, sometimes, the complex category prototype image forms an
integral part of the meaning and so requires the metaphor to capture
that shade of meaning precisely; in addition, the range, depth, and
variety of meaning is sometimes enhanced by the metaphor (e.g., He
who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword; An eye for an eye turns
the whole world blind; Like a fish out of water);
iii. some other times, the aesthetic appeal of the image rules
supreme and decides the metaphorical choice (e.g., A forgotten switch
may cause a wreck; One swine recognizes another; Who yaps like a dog
will be beaten like a dog). In addition, such proverbs reduce the premium
on encoding and decoding the meaning owing to the salience of the
image – culturally well-known and frequently recurring images are easily
understood and hence reduce the premium on decoding the meaning.
Here, the image may be a simple or complex category prototype.
Aesthetic appeal plays a very crucial role in the creation of proverb
potential expressions in literary texts. In view of their aesthetic appeal
and relevance to be prototypes to daily experiences – which are not
categorized under prototypes – they become proverbs in due course of
time. Again, there is a dispositional choice by the people in making them
proverbs: Disposition always rules supreme.

c. Ease in the Computation of Meaning

It is easier to compute the contextual meaning of a categorial practice which
may be abstract/new/unfamiliar through a concrete/known/familiar practice
embodied in the metaphor. The computation is from category to category via
the already present attributes rather than the abstract meaning in the
prototype where the concrete attributes are not present. This is a pragmatic
advantage for both the hearer and the speaker: the speaker encodes the
new contextual meaning easily because he knows it already through
another category and so does the hearer decode it. For example, in the
following Telugu conversation between my mother Mrs. Kantamani and me
about the decoration of Sri Ka:lima:tha in Her Temple in our town Narsapur,
Andhra Pradesh, India, the meaning is quickly and evocatively captured
through the image of a decorated doll and an undressed doll in the proverb:
(11) A : puvvulu ti:se:ste:, vigraham andamga le:du.
‘(If you) remove(ing) the flowers, the idol is unattractive’

B : avunu, undade:miti? Manishi ku:da: ante: alanka:ram

So will it not be ? Even a man (is) also like that, if the
decoration is
tise:ste:
removed.
Anni: pedite: bommakka, anni: tiste: timmakka.
(If you) put(ting) all Sister Doll, removing all Sister Thimma.
‘If put everything, Bommakka; if removed everything,
Thimmakka’

[Bommakka is a prototype of a beautiful well-dressed country lass; and

Thimmakka another prototype of an ill-looking country wench]

Some proverbs on the contrary – unlike metaphorical proverbs - can be used

only in restricted contexts when they refer to a particular subject only. A few
examples are given below.

3 Set: Restricted (Subject Specific) Proverbs

i. Women are saints in church, angels in the street, devils in the kitchen,
and apes in
bed.
ii. Good coffee should be black as sin, strong as the devil, and hot as hell.
iii. A woman’s place is in the house.
iv. Don’t spend all your money in one place.
v. A good surgeon must have an eagle’s eye, a lion’s heart, and a lady’s
hand.

Such proverbs as mentioned above are restricted in their application to

specific subjects: women, coffee, money, surgeon, etc. Their range is
restricted only to those subjects and not others unlike the literal or
metaphorical proverbs which can be applied to refer to various subjects. For
example, A woman’s place is in the house can be applied in situations where
women only are the subject, and not other subjects such as men. On the
other hand, literal proverbs like Honesty is the best policy or metaphorical
proverbs like An early bird catches the worm can be applied in a wide variety
of situations from business to marriage: an early bird can be anybody who is
early in doing some work; honesty can be in any situation.

IV. Summary and Conclusion

In the above discussion, a detailed semantic analysis of the literary,
figurative, and restricted (subject specific) types of proverbs has been made.
A special discussion of similaic, hyperbolical, paradoxical, and metaphorical
proverbs has been carried out to compute their literal meaning. In addition, a
simple ka:rmik linguistic motivation has been offered for the formation of
metaphorical proverbs.

As has been shown, there is a formal linguistic (semantic) process in

encoding and decoding the meaning of proverbs but it is not the end of the
derivation of meaning. This meaning has to be integrated into other types of
meanings to arrive at the final meaning of the proverb in its use in a context.
The referential meaning is the springboard from which the experiential
meaning is derived via the prototypical and contextual meanings. In the next
article, the syntactic meaning of the proverbs will be taken up for analysis
and it will be shown how the syntactic meaning also serves the function of
being a means to the generation of the experiential meaning (ka:rmik
meaning). Furthermore, in the succeeding articles in which the prototypical
and contextual meanings are derived in the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm, it
will be explained how the experiential meaning is holorchically derived from
them in a (w)holistic I-I-I network.

Works Cited

Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri [1998]. “The English Proverb in I/E Exchange: A

Multilayered Systemic Analysis”. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad:
CIEFL
------------ [1999]. “The Telugu Proverb in I/E Exchange: A
Multilayered Systemic Analysis”. A Paper Presented at the First International
Congress On English Grammar. Hyderabad: CIEFL
------------ [2000a]. “Reference, Sense and Denotation in
Proverbs”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work.
Hyderabad: CIEFL
________ [2000b]. “Propositions in Proverbs: A Semantic
Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work.
Hyderabad: CIEFL
 ________ [2000c]. “Synonymy and Antonymy in Proverbs: A
Semantic Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work.
Hyderabad: CIEFL
----------- [2000d]. “Figures of Speech in Proverbs: A Semantic
Analysis”. In Semantics of Proverbs. A Part of PhD Course Work. Hyderabad:
CIEFL
----------- [2009a]. “Linguistics in Proverbiology: A Plea for
Proverbial Linguistics as a Special Branch.” Keynote Address delivered at the
Third International Colloquium on Proverbs, Tavira, Portugal
----------- [2009b]. “The Phonotactics of R in English: Formal
Linguistic Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory”. Al Mergib Journal of
English Studies, Volume 1. Al Khoums and Ghasar Khiar: Al Mergib University
Berry, M. (1981a). “Polarity, ellipticity, elicitation and propositional
development, their relevance to the well-formedness of an exchange”.
Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 10, No. 1. 36 - 63.
------ (1981b). “Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: a multi -
layered approach to exchange structure”. In Studies in discourse analysis.
(ed.by) Malcolm Coulthard and Martin Montgomery. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.120 - 145.
----- (1981c). “Towards layers of exchange structure for directive
exchanges”. Network, 2. 23-32.
Leech, Geoffey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group
Limited
Lyons, John (1979). Semantics I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
----------- (1979). Semantics II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Mieder, Wolfgang [1982]. International Proverb Scholarship An Annotated
Bibliography. New York: Garland Publishing
_______ [1990]. International Proverb Scholarship An Annotated
Bibliography. Supplement I (1800 –1981). New York: Garland Publishing
_______ [1993]. International proverb Scholarship An Annotated
Bibliography. Supplement II (1982 - 1991). New York: Garland Publishing
---------- [1992]. A Dictionary of American Proverbs. New York:
Oxford University Press
Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge: Blackwell
Publishers
Searle, John (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
------ (1979a). Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
 ------ (1979b). “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts”. In Expression
& Meaning. Cambridge UP
Vanderveken, Daniel (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts Vol I. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
--------- (1991). Meaning and Speech Acts Vol II. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press