Proverbiallinguist Email Series 6 2004

On Chomsky’s Grammatical and Pragmatic Competence and the

Analysis of Proverbs: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Review 6
Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, CIEFL, Hyderabad

Another problem with T-G is the bifurcation of competence into grammatical and
pragmatic and the exclusion of pragmatic competence from the grammatical
competence.  Such a procedure is counterproductive in the case of proverbs for the
following reasons:

1. Proverbs are a-formal linguistic structures in the sense of formal  linguistic properties
being not definitive and it has been conclusively proved by Bhuvaneswar (2003 a, b, c,
d, e, f, g) that the syntax of proverbs is free, i.e., not constrained at all at the level of
proverbs, talk less of minimal or maximal constraint ( More about this later).To
elaborate it further, a proverb can occur in any syntactic structure depending upon the
choice of the prepositional content, and the choice and suitability of the syntactic
structure. Here, the suitability of the syntactic structure          relates to the prepositional
content of a proverb but not to proverbs in general. That is it can occur in one instance
but may or may not in another case. For example, an imperative structure is opted for
expressing the prepositional content of the ‘ Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’. On
the other hand, there are variations in the imperative and in the declarative for ‘ Why
buy the cow when you get the milk free?’ as follows:                

(1a)    Don’t buy a cow to get a glass of milk;

(1b)  You don’t need to buy a cow just because you  like milk.    (Mieder 1992: 123)
or
(2a)  A bawling cow soon forgets her own calf;
(2b)  The cow that bawls the loudest soon forgets her calf.                                                     
(ibid)

In (2a), a choice for an NP without a clause has been made, probably, for brevity: the
cow that bawls = a bawling cow.

Hence, proverbs cannot be identified by their syntactic structure at all even though they
have a syntactic structure and there is a need to incorporate pragmatic and cultural
competence into their formal linguistic structure to provide a principled account of
them. To put it differently, proverbs are pragmatically and culturally constrained
grammatical (formal linguistic) structures. As such, there is a need to integrate
functionalism into formalism which is not done in T-G.

1|Page
Proverbiallinguist Email Series 6 2004

Radford ( 1988:29 ) points out that for a grammar to attain descriptive adequacy, it
should attain universality.Thus, any adequate linguistic theory must be able to provide
us with a descriptively adequate grammar not only for English  or Telugu or Hausa or
any other language but for every language. English has proverbs exhibiting English
syntactic structure while Telugu proverbs Telugu syntactic structure and so on.But
proverbs in any language are:  1) culturally confirmed; 2) textually frozen; 3) prototypes
instantiating categorical actions; and 4.illocutions which are impressionally cognized
( Bhuvaneswar 2004 ).Hence , if we want to look for universal principles that operate in
the formation of proverbs, they are to be found outside formal linguistic properties.
Frozen textuality is the only formal linguistic property but it is outside the four levels of
phonology, lexis, syntax, and semantics. In a similar way, impressional illocutionality is
also a discourse property, and not a formal one. Furthermore, prototype - categorization
is a cognitive property that is exhibited in non-linguistic actions also. For example, in
the formation of automobiles such as car, bus, and lorry. Within the categories also,
there may be further sub-categorization. These prototypes are also frozen in their
material form at the core level and are culturally set in their variant forms. So it is not
unreasonable to suppose that the properties of general intelligence are anushangikally
(inheriting a characteristic from cause into effect ) responsible for the creation of
proverbs. As a result, if proverbs have universal principles in their formation - which
can be cited as evidence for universal grammar - these principles are not language
specific in the first instance, not formal linguistic in the second instance, and finally
composite of formal, functional, cognitive, and anthropological linguistic properties.
These belong to the realm of action - its creation, performance, and
comprehension under the universal science of creation.

Regarding universality in proverbs, there is another problem. The principles in the UG

are directly related to the parameters. That means any parametric variation is derived
from and bound by the universal principles. Trask (2002) in his review of Baker’s Atoms
of Language feels that the principled account of parametric variation by ad hoc
hypotheses and complex explanations becomes unacceptable since they cannot be
applied universally across all languages.

If my opinion that the universal principles ascribed to language do not belong to

language per se but to action in general, then the parametric variation can be derived
from a different source, namely, svabhavam ( disposition or nature) in a different
manner.

When the universe is created, it is created on the basis of certain physical, and biological
laws, and all the objects, actions, and states of being are interconnected in a mind
boggling, entangled network of  action - reaction chains through karmik laws. These
2|Page
Proverbiallinguist Email Series 6 2004

laws are not fiction but actual in the material world and are the basis of creation.
Whether we accept Eswara (God ) as theists or not as atheists, any rational, scientifically
oriented man will accept the physical and biological laws - the niyati  as  informed  in
Yoga Vasishtam of the Sage Valmiki . The only moot point is whether they are karmik
or not.These laws are created in such a way that it is practically impossible - so far - for
ordinary humans to alter them. For example, ‘the act of eating by a person’ which is
created as an action by Eswara / Prakruti (Nature) is ‘ a given’. There is only one way of
performing this action: An agent (x)  eats (z)  an object (y).The participants are x and y
and the action is z and their relation is that of x getting y into the mouth and perform
the act of eating z (by chewing and/or swallowing the object) - note the difference in
eating by dogs. However, human beings are genetically endowed with the ability to
represent this action semiotically and this semiotic action they can alter according to the
manner of their cognition of this action. That means the semiotic representation of this
action is impressional( dispositional ) and subject to variation - of course, the act of
variation itself is again influenced - but not controlled - by certain considerations of
economy, optimality, viability , and expressivity or aesthetic appeal.

Each speech community’s dispositional or impressional cognition of action is the

resultant of the impressional cognitions of the same action by the individuals of the
community at the time of cognition of that action to form its semiotic representation.
And this representation so formed is transmitted further to the individuals  and so
propagated and perpetuated. If the community A chooses to represent the act of eating
in the order xyz, then that community will have that order until a new generation or a
new set of people decide to change it according to their likes and dislikes (svabhavam) -
the change may be initiated either by an individual - a la fashions - or by a group and
may be gradual or spontaneous. The OLD ENGLISH people chose this order xyz  as
seen in the SOV structure of  Old English. So also did the Telugu people. However, the
MODERN ENGLISH people brought a change in that order by choosing SVO structure.
Hence, what changed is the svabhavam of the people and consequently this change in
svabhavam brought in a change in the linguistic representation resulting in variation.
Since humans use language for communication, the principles of economy, optimality,
viability  come into play and the changes may not be too divergent from the principle of
action. That is why we get a very few variations such as :
SOV;SVO;VOS;VSO;OSV;OVS. It does not mean that other variations are not possible.
They are indeed possible in principle because humans have control over the creation of
semiotic structures but will be constrained because of the above reasons. For example,
some variation such as SSOVVV is possible but it is not economical. Nonetheless, owing
to other reasons of viability, the svabhavam may be influenced and we may get such
examples as in English where mixed patterns are chosen by the people in representation
of this type of action: SVO ( I like that coat ) and OSV( That coat I like) to express
3|Page
Proverbiallinguist Email Series 6 2004

topicality.  That is for some types they may like SVO and for some others OSV. A
contrasting example can be found in Arabic: uhibu daelik al mi ’tef  ‘I like that coat’ 
but  ‘That coat (not this one) I like’ has no acceptable equivalent : * daelik al mi’tef.
Another structure is used in such contexts: lae bal al- aekhar ‘but the other’ (personal
communication Yassir Mohammed). Nonetheless, the impressional choices can be
motivated at the level of disposition according to certain principles( pragmatic
principles including).What happened here is the English preferred economy while the
Arabs preferred not to violate the usual order use ‘quantity’ in guiding the choice.
These are impressional cognitional choices rather than sacrosanct universal principles
guiding parametric variation. In the case of proverbs, we come across adaptations,
called  anti-proverbs. But in them the variation is governed by analogy rather than any
universal principle of grammar genetically endowed. If the disposition is constant, we
get stable and language specific motivation.

To sum up, if universality of proverbs is to be motivated, we have to go beyond

language and seek those universals in action. So, we get a new perspective on
universality in terms of UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF ACTION derived from the
universal science of creation. These can be observable when compared with those of
language and finally all of them can be traced back to Universal Principles of Action.

Another way to look at parametric variation is in terms of the game analogy. The
constitutive rules of the game are fixed but their application in playing the game are
dependent on the disposition and skill of the players and the context of playing the
game. The variations can be many for the same act of playing the game, as in cricket.

When the bowler bowls the ball to the leg side, the batsman has a choice to hit it to the
same side - this is technically correct - but if he wants to score runs, he would better hit
to a scoring side, say, off -side where the ball will not be caught. So the batsman will act
according to his disposition and skill and play. Accordingly, he may execute a reverse
sweep by turning the blade of the bat to hit the ball. Then, if it catches on and becomes
acceptable, others will follow it, and standardize. Is it not similar to the OSV choice in
‘That coat I like’?

There is already an SVO structure blocking emphasis on the object ‘That coat’. It is
reversed to the front position to bring emphasis and thus communicate the emphasis or
topicality (scoring a run!).The Arab (A Yemeni batsman! ) did not like to do this and
preferred to play a common shot and so opted for a different structure.

Applying the same reasoning, we find that proverbs are not formed from a universal
grammar principle of proverbiality but from a universal principle of action of
4|Page
Proverbiallinguist Email Series 6 2004

prototypicalization. From this principle, the speakers of different languages create

proverbs. Obviously, as they create their proverbs, they will do so in their language and
consequently use their language’s linguistic structure because this is what they
inherited culturally from the society and not because it is genetically endowed in their
genes. In a similar way, the social praxis of the society is also taken to form the
prepositional content of the proverbs. These two factors of language and culture
constitute the variation. As a result , we get different proverbs in different languages.If
the social praxis corresponds with the social praxis of another society - Is there a
universal system of culture? - then we geeeeet parallel proverbs with similar
prepositions or cultural practices. What is more, proverbs are acquired by cultural
exposure and not genetically inherited. People hear the proverbs, remember them, learn
how to use them, and then use them, and finally practice and perfect their skill! They do
not do so as spiders spin their webs or wildebeests stand up as soon as they are born!!!

References

Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003 a)

Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003 b)
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003 c)

Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003 d)

Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003 e)
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003 f)
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2003 g)
Trask (2002)

5|Page