The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

The KLT Principle of Dispositional Discrete Permutation:

Its Role in the Linguitecture of English Words
Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, Ka:rmik Linguistics and Literary Association, Hyderabad

Abstract
Many types of English word-formation processes such as affixation, conversion,
compounding, blending, reduplication, clipping, derivation, echoing, acronomy,
initialism, backformation, antonomasia, etc. and their application and retention are
merely described from a formal or functional morphological perspective. However, their
typological variation is not studied from a causal dispositional (from the perspective of
WHY which generates, specifies, and directs the HOW to bring about the WHAT at
WHERE and WHEN), socio-cognitive linguistic perspective of choice as in Ka:rmik
Linguistic Theory (KLT) - based on the universal sciences of creation, living, and
language as scientific evidence - as far as I know. In this view, language is not only used
dispositionally for living in a context but it is also created by living in the context for
living in it as ka:rmik (via dispositional) action. According to the KLT Principle of
Dispositional Discrete Permutation, “When we live, we dispositionally language
the world in/by its experience through limited uses of limited means in
(un)limited permutations”

In this paper, an attempt has been made to motivate the word-formation processes as
dispositionally generated-specified-directed-materialized choices according to the
Principle of Dispositional Discrete Permutation (PDDP) in the Ka:rmik Linguistic
Theory and show that “language is as it is because of what disposition does: as
the workman, so is his work”.

I. INTRODUCTION
In the literature available on word-formation processes, they are described and
explained either in terms of formalism or functionalism but not in terms of
disposition. To elaborate more, a word-formation process is motivated in terms of
what the process is and what the structure of the process (as in formalism) is or
how the process is functional and as a result of its function what form it takes (as
in functionalism) or how it is conceptualized (as in cognitivism).
These views are atomistic in their formulation since language has all the form-
function-meaning-style-context (discourse) parts as its radii in an interconnected-
interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) radial network to constitute the whole circle of
language as shown below.

Page 69 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

Form
Context Function
Language

Style Meaning

Fig. 1. The I-I-I Network of the Five Components of Language

(see Bhuvaneswar 2013 a, b for a detailed review of these three theories and
their defects as well as differences with the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory). As a
result, description of word-formation in any one model – be it formal or
functional or cognitive – without including the other levels does not give the
whole picture of word-formation processing.

According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, language is not only used dispositionally

for living in a context by living in it but it is also created for living in the context by
living in the context. In other words, language is generated-chosen-specified-
directed-materialized (GSDMed) by disposition as a means for (coordinating) the
coordination of action ((C) COA) for the fulfilment of desires and their ultimate
experience in a context (FuDEC). In this view, Karma (with a capital K in the
italicized word as different from karma with a small k in the religious sense) (see
Bhuvaneswar 2013a for details) is a philosophical principle of cause-effect
experientiality without reference to rebirth; and it is the ultimate cause via disposition
(svabha:vam) – which is a complex of traits-knowledge-va:sana:s (internalized
impressions of habituation) – in the creation and application of language as a
means for (C)ing (COA) for FuDEC. It is the cause that determines the means
(HOW in terms of manner, place, and time) to bring about the effect (WHAT in
terms of the result as the product) and its experience (in terms of pleasure and
pain or delusion or mere witnessing) in an I-I-I network leading to the choice and
execution of action. The action is produced from dispositional functional pressure
(D. F. P.) giving rise to an impulsion leading to a desire for lingual action. This
desire is controlled by a dispositional bias (D. B.) leading to a response bias (R.B.)
which decides the choice. Finally, choice, leads to dispositional cogneme creation (D.
C. Cr.) which consists of dispositional vision (D. V.), dispositional composition (D.
Comp.) and dispositional cognition of the material form (D. C. M. F.) of action. This
D. C. M. F. is manifested as dispositionally materialized form (D. M. F.) of lingual
action. Finally, action in turn gives results and the ka:rmik actors (i.e., cause-effect
experiential socioculturalspiritual contextual lingual actional actors) as social
actors as contextual lingual actors experience the results of action as pleasure
and/or pain or merely witness them. This process of use of language is captured
in the following equation.

Page 70 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

(1) Use of Language Network Equation:

Disposition D. F. P. D. B. R. B. Choice D. C. Cr.

WHY
Concept
D.V. : Manner ● D. Comp. Pattern D. C. M. F. of Action
HOW WHAT Structure D. M. F. Result
Place Time Experience

In a similar way, language is also created dispositionally as has already been

shown with empirical evidence in the case of Quotational Lexical Bifurcation in
Telugu, a recently originated word-formation process in journalism (see
Bhuvaneswar 2013b), and the same can be equally shown in such major word-
formation processes as blending, affixation, reduplication, etc. and minor word-
formation processes such as abbreviation, backword-formation, acronomy,
haplology, hypochorism, and antonomasia. This process of creation of language
is captured in the following equation.

Legend: D. I. C. Dispositional Impulsion for Creation; D. C. Cr. LA Dispositional

Choice for Creation of Lingual Action

In KLT, there are some principles laid down to provide a principled account of
language formation-application-transmission-perpetuation (FATP). They are as
follows.

1. 1. Lingual Action Principles (FATP)

1. Universal Sciences of [Action-Living-Lingual Action]
2. Principle of Creation of Action (for Solution and Innovation) which has three sub-
principles which are: i. Principle of Intuitive Understanding of the Phenomenon (Pr.
IUP); ii. Pr. of Troubleshooting (Pr. TS); iii. Problem Solving Strategies (PSSs); and iv.
Solution/Innovation (S/V).

Page 71 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

Under PSS, we have many strategies out of which Principle of Exploration of Variables
(EV) is an important principle, under which there are three sub-principles which
are:
1. ECV (Exploration of Contextual Variables); 2. PEV (Productive Extension of
Variables);
3. CNV (Creation of New Variables); and 4. CNV (D) (Creation of New
Variables by Deletion);
3. The Principle of Qualification and Quantification in Linguistic Processes;
4. Principle of Application, Transmission, and Perpetuation and ICCCAS;
4. Principle of Integration into the System by I-I-Iing, NwNing and A-W-F;
5. Principle of Ka:rmik Processing by Ka:rmikpoeisis (Experiential Autopoeisis,
Dissipation, Bifurcation
and Branching)

These main principles along with others are used to motivate the creation as well
as use of every type of lingual action in a context. These principles are applied in
a systematic procedure as follows.

1. 2. KLT Procedure
In practice, KLT is applied
first, by data collection
(which gives us the WHAT of language in question for analysis);
second, patterning and structuring the data into clearly identifiable categories,
types, and classes (which gives the HOW of language in terms of its
Organization);
third, discovering concepts and principles from the patterned and structured
data
(which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Principles for Organization);
fourth, developing systemic choice networks for the system
(which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Dispositional
Conceptualization); and
fifth, motivating systemic choices from disposition and building up the language
as a dispositional sociocognitive linguistic system created and used for the
construction of ka:rmik reality via dispositional reality via actional reality.

An attempt has been made to motivate the word-formation processes in English

as basically ka:rmik and not otherwise as postulated in other grammatical models
of language description.

II. Literature Review

Word-formation processes have been motivated in different linguistic models. In
traditional grammars, a word, syllable, or sentence is created by following all the
principles related to it without any competition or violation among them as

Page 72 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

proposed in OT. In functional linguistics and cognitive linguistics, word-

formation processes can be motivated from their functional and cognitive
linguistic perspectives.

Accordng to Halliday and Matthiessen (2004: 31), “functionality is intrinsic to

language, that is to say, the entire architecture of language is arranged along functional
lines. Language is as it is because of the functions in which it has evolved in the human
species”. This, I consider an extreme functional perspective on the relationship
between function and form. Let us closely examine this issue from different
perspectives of the relationship between function, and form, meaning, choice,
and human disposition.

1. According to Wikipedia, “According to Lamarck's long-discredited theory of

evolution, anatomy will be structured according to functions associated with use;
for instance, giraffes are taller to reach the leaves of trees. By contrast, in
Darwinian evolution, form (variation) precedes function (as determined by
selection). That is to say in Lamarckian evolution the form is altered by the
required function, whereas in Darwinian evolution small variations in form
allow some parts of the population to function "better", and are therefore more
successful reproductively”. So Halliday is a Lamarckian in his view of function –
it is also the same in architecture: Form ever follows function (Louis Sullivan). But
from a Darwinian evolution perspective, it is the form that leads to better
function.

2. When we give primary importance to ‘function’, form is constrained severely

by its utility, and factors such as aesthetic appeal, and personal tastes are set
aside.

3. Now let us come back to language and word-formation processes in general

and see whether function rules supreme in their formation.

3. 1. Function – Form Relation in Language: The relationship between

form and function is not that straight forward as in biological or physical sciences
for the simple reason that the medium of language is sound (in speech) and ink
marks on paper in writing, not any other material substance. This difference is
crucial in deciding the function-form relation: the shape of the sounds need not
conform to the functions they perform if we consider function as ‘what
something does’. For example, the word ‘sky’ is a monosyllabic word and it
performs the function of referring to an infinite expanse above earth and the
word ‘ant’ to a tiny creature on earth; on the other hand ‘sky’ must be expansive
to enclose the world. However, these words are formed out of their own rules of
creation in language.

Page 73 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

3. 1. 1. One Function – Different Forms: Both in the animal world and in

language, we have different forms (also called structures) to perform the same
function. For example, the function of digestion by grinding up food can be
performed by the teeth and the gizzard of a bird in the animal kingdom. Even if
we justify this on functional grounds, it is difficult in the case of languages:
different words, and different structures may perform the same function. For
example, eDa:ri in Telugu, saha:ra n Arabic, re:gista:n in Hindi, and desert in
English all mean the same ‘desert’ ( the symbol of colon (:) is used to indicate
long vowels); SOV in Telugu, SVO in English, OVS in Hixkaryana, and V(S)O in
Arabic perform the same function of an assertion. The point is the linguitecture
(i.e., the design (architecture is a misnomer)) of these languages is NOT arranged
along functional lines as claimed in the Hallidayan quote; it is arranged
according to the dispositional cognition of the form for the same function.

3. 1. 2. One Form – Different Functions: The trunk of an elephant is used

for eating as well as uprooting trees. Here we can say that the form is made
according to its functions, but look at a word ‘invite’ which is used as a verb
becoming a noun after its creation for the specific function of being a verb – here,
the form precedes the function and is used to create a new function for the same
word; a word ‘silly’ meaning something before (blessed) meaning something else
now (funny); the word ‘good’ extending its meaning to many other meanings
from being ethical to nice, useful and beautiful. Therefore, we can also say that:
“Function may follow form in language“ (Bhuvaneswar).
Indeed, it is the case in the first creation of language by cause-effect relation but
later on when language develops as a system, the effect that carries a function
becomes the cause for productivity. For example, -ed evolves as a past tense suffix
in Modern English. The function of indicating past tense by -ed becomes the
deciding factor in creting past tense forms of other verbs by analogy.

3. 1. 3. One form – Extended Functions: Sometimes the form may be used

to perform many functions in a context. For example, the same word may
perform different functions in a sentence as the subject or object: Mangoes (S) are
sweet vs I gave him mangoes (O).

3. 1. 4. Dispositional Creativity and Novelty: There are many words which

are not created to perform any real function as such except the function of being
novel: backwords (naming by reverse spelling) for American towns; on the other
hand, an affixation process such as transfixation in Arabic is a feat of
dispositional creativity.

3. 1. 5. Free Will vs Compulsion: In architecture, function controlling form may

be all right, but in day to day life, it is not the rule: many historical changes are not
functionally decided but dispositionally altered: Sound loss in languages is not functional

Page 74 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

but dispositionally created by such factors as laziness, carelessness, and imitation. Here,
it is certainly a case of the motor skills of the vocal organs and / or the temperament of the
speakers / speech community. So also in the case of typological choices in word-formation
processes: Kyrgyz prefers mainly suffixation and no prefixation is available (personal
communication Shakhriza 2016), Mandarin Chinese is preponderantly moving towards
compounds – because of disyllabic words; Xavante has 48 clicks whereas Indian
languages have no phonemic clicks;

3. 2. Function – Meaning Relation in Language: there is no strict correspondence

between function and meaning in language. The same function can be performed
by different meanings (e.g., propositions in the exclamations to mean sarcasm:
‘And Brutus is an honourable man!’ in Julius Caesar by Shakespeare). Here, a
new function of sarcasm is derived from form by repetition in the oration of
Antony to condemn Brutus.

3. 3. Function – Choice Relation in Language: There is always the possibility of choosing

different forms by dispositional cognition to perform the same function as shown by
the typological variation in languages: S - V - O : SVO, SOV, OVS, OSV, VSO, VOS.
In the field of word-formation processes, variation in the formation of words and their
processes does not really effect the functions they perform. Whether the words are formed
by mainly compounding (as in Mandarin Chinese), or mainly suffixation (as in Kyrgyz),
or mainly transfixation (as in Arabic); or by isolation or agglutination, the functions are
not affected.

Most importantly, a linguistic function (to be realized by a form) has to be first

and foremost discovered or created and then chosen to become a function in
language. Without that prerequisite, no function can exist in language. If the people have
not discovered and chosen the function of asking questions by a question marker, that
question marker will never come into existence in that language (e.g., the absence of
plural forms in Chinese – ge is used to indicate number; the absence of numbers in
Piraha; the absence of gender in the first person in many languages; the absence of
question markers in the American language Hixkaryana (?)). Hence, dispositional
(cognition and choice and its implementation) are supreme in any linguistic system. This
itself offers a major reason for rejecting the functionalist position as cited earlier.

3. 4. Function – Disposition Relation in Language: In fact, disposition, dispositional

cognition, dispositional choice rule supreme in generating-choosing-specifying-directing-
materializing (GCSDM) all lingual action as will be shown in this paper.

3. 5. Function – Karma Relation in Language: According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory,

Karma decides the individual and collective svabha:vam of the individuals from where all
lingual action is GCSDMed. Hence it is the ultimate cause of all lingual activity,

Page 75 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

including its functionality. Therefore, in such a view, it is atomic and simplistic to think
that linguitecture (architecture of language as per Halliday) is functional.

On the whole, it is submitted that the idea that function decides linguitecture
has to be critically re-examined in SFL.

Pavol Štekauer’s onomasiological approach to word-formation is another important

theory of word-formation. In his model, the word-formation process is divided
into: conceptual, semantic, onomasiological, onomatological, and phonological levels
(see Stekauer 2001: 11). Even though it is better than the formal models in the
sense that there is an inclusion of the cognitive component into the model and
division of the process into conceptualization, meaning assignment, selection of
the semiotic components (onomasiological and onomatological), and the formal
(phonological) component, such a division is not dispositional, sociocognitively
comprehensive and systematic. In a word-formation process, there are three basic
stages: 1. Choice; 2. I-I-Iing NwN; and 3. (Material Form) Realization. First, the
form that is realized embodies a pattern and its structure (arrangement) (P&S) and
this P&S embodies its concept of form which is dispositionally chosen and cognized.
To illustrate, the word examination as an assemblage of its 11 phonemes as sounds
is its material form. A P&S has been superimposed on this material form (sound
energy) as this and that phoneme to be so and so phoneme (i, g, z, ae, m, i, n, ,
ʃ, , n) in such and such manner [into four or five syllables in that order of
arrangement of phonemes into syllables: ig.zæae.mi.n.ʃ(ə)n]. This P&S level is
critical in identifying the variety-range-depth of the phonological processes
involved in the formation and structuration of words, in fact, any linguistic
phenomenon. This P&S of the form further embodies its concept of form and this
concept of form is impelled from dispositional knowledge by cogneme cognition as shown
in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory Conceptuality Graph (see Bhuvaneswar 2013b, c) - and
the concept of meaning can also be motivated in this graph. This concept of the
form furthermore embodies meaning (concept of meaning) that P where P is
examination. Again, the concept of meaning (that P) will also have a P&S of its
concept of meaning as this and that meaning (a process) to be so and so meaning
(an examination) in such and such a form of meaning (an abstract process
realized by a physical process and classified as an abstract noun) has been
superimposed on this material form (sound energy). Hence, the material form
serves as a common base for both the material form of the word and the meaning
of the word. As such, there are two simultaneous superimpositions of concepts (of
meaning and form) and P&Ss (of meaning and form) on to a single material form
of the word for its realization. This entire process cannot be achieved without a
choice of the concepts, P&Ss, and the material (sound) form of the word
examination. Second, in addition, these two levels of concepts of form and meaning
function as two distinct networks in a linear process; and also have P&S, and

Page 76 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

material form as their sub-networks. What is more, these two networks with their
sub-networks are interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) in forming
the word. [This networking is neatly captured in the Principles of Networks-within-
Networks and I-I-Iing Networks in radial networks in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory
as will be shown later]. Third, what is cognized to be this and that to be so and so
in such and such form is realized (materially manifested as a sound form
semiotically representing meaning) by the Principle of Material Form Realization. In
Stekauer’s approach, the cognitive processing is not captured comprehensively
even though he mentions the conceptual level and the phonological level. In KLT,
there is the concept-pattern and structure-material form level motivated from
disposition-desire-effort-action-result-experience process by disposition-dispositional
bias-response bias-choice-variation-result-experience processing of action by gradual
evolution. This is done by establishing a route from the
i. Universal Sciences of [Action-Living-Lingual action] of supracosm-
macrocosm-microcosm
– to –
ii. the Individual/Collective [Intuitive Understanding of a Phenomenon (IPU) –
Troubleshooting – Problem Solving Strategies (PSS) – Solution] by Exploration of
Variables
– through –
iii. [Exploration of Contextual Variables (ECV) – Productive Extension of
Variables (PEV) – Creation of New Variables (CNV) – Deletion of Variables (DV)]
– by –
iv. Networking networks and networks-within-networks (NwN)
– in –
v. an Interconnected-Interrelated- Interdependent (I-I-I) and Atomic- (W)holistic
framework.

Therefore, according to KLT, all these approaches are not holistic and they cannot
provide a comprehensive description of the word-formation processes (see
Bhuvaneswar 2013a for more details on the atomicity of these approaches).
Hence, there is a need to make such a holistic motivation of the word-formation
processes in English and other languages in general.

III. Dispositional Creativity in the Formation of Word-formation Processes

(WFPs): Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory
There is a historical linguistic component in the word-formation processes which
may or may not be available to us. Knowledge of historical evolution of words
and word-formation processes will be of great help in offering a principled
account of what, how and why these processes came into existence. In their
absence, we can use only the effect-to-cause logic in a strictly scientific framework
for inferring these processes.

Page 77 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

Let us first know the basic constituents in a word and see how these constituents
function in the creation of WFPs.

3. 1. Basic Constituents in a Word in a WFP

From a preliminary analysis of words, we get three constituents in a word which
are the stem (root in morphology), the base (base morpheme), and the word. For
example in English, a stem is “the form of a word stripped of all affixes that is
recognizable as such in English: eg: man, person, apply, abattoir, rhinoceros” (Quirk,
et al 1986: 1519). A base is a unit with which an affix is combined but it can be
distinct or identical with the stem as follows:
(1) Word: jealous = base jeal- + affix -ous
[the base here is identical with the stem, but neither is a word in English]
(2) a. Word: polarize = base polar + affix –ze; b. Word: depolarize = affix de- + base
polarize
[the base here is not identical with the stem in either case, the stem being pole; but
both the base and the stem are English words]
(3) (be)spectacled [‘wearing spectacles’] = base spectacle + affix -ed
[here the base is identical with the stem, but although the word spectacle exists in
English it is only the stem of the plural spectacles that constitutes the base in
spectacled ] (see Quirk et al 1986: 1518-19)

In addition to these three basic constituents, we can include the principle of

analogy as a cognitive constituent in the formation of words by derivation.

(4) x-otherapy [treatment by means of x on the analogy (both formal and

semantic) of a pattern of words such as psych-o-therapy; physi-o-therapy]: a
pattern or paradigm of similar items becomes established, and new coinings are
made conforming to this pattern by derivation.

The relationship between stem (root), base (base morpheme) and word can be
captured by the following equation:
(4) Stem/Word Base Word Affixation/Analogy
[ apparently transforms into; gradually evolves into; through the process of ]
This is with reference to words formed from stems as bases (roots in morphology)
and bases (base morphemes according to Quirk et al 1986: 1520). However, we also
need to know how stems are formed and that requires a semiotic exploration into
why, how and what sounds are used as symbols in their variety-range-depth in
the formation of words.

Let us briefly make an attempt to do so.

Page 78 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

3. 2. Principles and Concepts of Word-Stem Creation and Development as a

Basic WFP
In any stem, we find vowels, consonants in their variety-range-depth. Therefore,
it is reasonable to first find out the permutations and combinations in which they
can be combined and then using that as a framework for reference, find out how
English has made use of this knowledge and chose its own patterns of consonant-
vowel combinations.

3. 2. 1. Patterns of Consonant-Vowel Combinations.

At the most basic level, we can get only two options for stem-making: 1. C and V.
However, if we take the combination of both of them into consideration, we get
two more options by the mathematical Principle of Addition and Spatial Order
(PASO): 2. CV and VC. This combining process can be progressively increased
by adding C and V again and again. For example, by adding C1 to CV and VC we
get six combinations: C1CV, C C1V, CVC1, C1VC, VC C1, and VC1C. By adding V
to CV and VC, we get another six combinations with V. In other words, the
number increases progressively. Now, if we start adding different consonants as
well as vowels, the number of words increases enormously giving rise to
hundreds of thousands of options of words. This is what exactly happened in the
English lexicon. By doing so, the lexical corpus becomes rich or the language
becomes corpus rich in lexicon. This facilitates clarity, variety, range, depth,
novelty, and expressivity in the language. This combinatorial power is inherently
constituted in the language by the Universal Science of Lingual Action (US LA) by
being derived from the Universal Science of Action (US A). US A is already out there
in Nature as this universe is created and it is discovered day by day by the
scientists in their respective fields of physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

Human beings who are created in this universe in an I-I-I network with other
living and non-living systems in their variety-range-depth exist and conduct their
samsa:ram (existing by experiencing pleasure and pain as living) in a context. In
this connection, they created language owing to the dispositional functional
pressure (D.F.P.) built up in them for ((coordination of) coordination of action) ((C)
COA), first, as a tool with a very limited number of sounds and words and
developed it into a rich system with numerous words and many sentence patterns
to be used as a resource for (C) COA to the fulfill their complex desires and
construct actional-dispositional-ka:rmik (cause-effect experiential) realities for the
ultimate experience of the results of action.

We say they created language because of the empirical evidence of human beings
creating words in a historical process but not genetically inheriting them from
Nature lock, stock and barrel. In this process, they consciously made choices and
absorbed emergent choices unconsciously to develop the linguistic system by gradual
evolution as they used, transmitted, and perpetuated it. Obviously, these choices

Page 79 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

are made according to their likes and dislikes of formal-functional-semantic-

cognitive-dispositional appeals in their algorithmic-heuristic-automatic use, creation,
development, and processing of language, as explained earlier in Equation (2).
Put differently, language is generated-chosen-specified-directed-materialized
(GSDMed) by disposition for the construction of dispositional reality through the
construction of action reality. Finally, dispositional reality is constructed for the
ultimate construction of ka:rmik reality which leads to the experience of the
results of action performed for the fulfilment of desires.

3. 2. 2. Variety-Range-Depth in Consonants and Vowels

In order to express the variety-range-depth of phenomenal action, the corpus of
language has to be enriched in a meaningful and purposeful manner. To do so,
monotony has to be avoided (because of the Principle of Aesthetic Appeal
(PAA)), simplicity and clarity without ambiguity have to be maintained to the
maximum possible extent without prejudice to PAA, functional utility should be
protected, and the linguistic system should represent the phenomenal world to
the requirements of the language community. These challenges develop D.F.P. in
the human beings who as social actors become ka:rmik actors to respond to these
challenges according to their own dispositional creativity, analyticity, and
experiential intensity. As a result, they embark upon an adventure of Exploration
of Variables (EV) leading to Exploration of Contextual Variables (ECV),
Productive Extension of Variables (PEV), Creation of New Variables (CNV), and
also Deletion of Variables (D. V.) and build up the phonemic system in its range-
variety-depth by gradual evolution as can be observed in the IPA chart with 11
places of articulation and 8 manners of articulation as a part of the US LA.

3. 2. 3. Qualification of Exploration of Variables and Principle of Choice of Action

(P. Ch. A)
EV as any and every other linguistic process is controlled by the Principle of
Choice of System (P. Ch. S) derived from the Principle of Choice of Action (P. Ch. A).
According to P.Ch. A, disposition qualifies every lingual action in its variety-
range-depth. As such, the exploration of variables is qualified by the svabha:vam
(disposition) of the language community at each and every stage of the
exploration. Consequently, a sa:ttvik svabha:vam will produce only that much of
exploration required in its variety-range-depth in a systematic manner; a ra:jasik
svabha:vam on the other hand will produce an exploration more than what is
required in an extravagant or more elaborate manner, sometimes randomly, that is it
will result in proliferation of the process in excess in its variety-range-depth; and
a ta:masik svabha:vam will produce an exploration less than what is required, that
is, it will result in reduction of the process, deficit in its variety-range-depth,
sometimes resulting in an erratic manner. Again, this exploration of variables is
dispositionally context-sensitive, i.e., dependent on the Inclinational-Informational-
Habituational state of the language community in a particular spatio-temporal-

Page 80 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

material and socio-cultural-spiritual setting. As a result, dispositional context-

sensitively, we get three possibilities:
1. the more creative the exploration, the more variety we get in the word-
formation process,
i.e., we get more number of word-formation processes and their sub-
divisions;
2. the more variable and greater the exploration, the wider the range of
exploration will be;
i.e., we get more varieties of WFPs representing more types of phenomenal
and noumenal action with more types of meaning;
3. the more intense and specific the exploration, the more the depth of the
exploration will be;
i.e., we get more detail and specificity into the WFP patterning and
representation of
meaning.

3. 2. 4. Linguitecture and The Principle of Choice of the System (P. Ch. S.)
According to P. Ch. S., a ka:rmik system is developed by a multidimensional
networking of a number of phenomena in a very systematic manner through
dispositional creativity of the individual members in a group standardized at the
collective level and further transmitted to the individuals from the collective
level. This process is captured in the ICCCSA networks in KLT.

Network 1: ICCCSA Network of Application-Transmission-Retention-

Perpetuation of Language

Some of the most important principles made use of in the linguitecture of a

language are: 1. Dispositionalization of the System; 2. Gradual Evolution of the System;

Page 81 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

3. Creativity-Unity-Diversity-Autonomy in Rule-Formation; 4. Integration of the

System by I-I-Iing, NwNing and A-W-F; and 5. Ka:rmik Processing the System, etc.

3. 2. 4. 1. Dispositionalization of the System

According to KLT, language is created-used-transmitted-perpetuated by the
dispositional choices made by the language community. In other words,
language is anthropological and its linguitecture is dispositionally conceptualized-
patterned and arranged-materially realized as human beings exist in a context
and perform triple activity (mental-vocal-physical) to fulfil their desires and
experience the results of their actions. Put differently, the function of human
existence is to do samasa:ram (i.e., live by performing action according to their
disposition to fulfil their desires and experience the results of their actions at the
individual-collective levels from birth-to-death). In order to fulfil their complex
desires, they have to coordinate coordination of action and to do so they needed a
semiotic system which is readily producible, usable and malleable, ductile, and
highly productive for (observing, interpreting, identifying), representing, creating,
(initiating, communicating, coordinating), and experiencing (I3 C3 RE) action. This
semiotic system is not given as a package and installed in human beings as they
are born – it has to be acquired from the context. That is why as a child is born, he
is born in a particular context and he acquires that language which is spoken in
that particular context and not a remote language which he does not hear.
Moreover, language is a system that is not acquired like chairs and tables but
acquired by analyticity (reasoning, logic, interpretation and identification),
memory, and habituation and used dispositionally for constructing their
dispositional reality via actional reality for the ultimate construction of their
ka:rmik reality (cause-effect experiential reality). Therefore, it must have also
been created by using these very processes – as evident from its design features
and structure – by choosing them dispositionally. Thus, a linguistic system
becomes a dispositionally designed system and it should be treated as such and
analyzed as such but not otherwise. Doing otherwise makes the interpretation
unnatural, psychologically implausible, explanatorily and descriptively defective
and inadequate.

Dispositionalization of a system means influencing every component and feature

of the system by internal qualification like blueness qualifying a lotus to make it a
blue lotus. There are three basic constituents (sattva, rajas, tamas) and six mixed
constituents [(ra:jasik-ta:masik) sattva; (sa:ttvik-ta:masik) rajas; (sa:ttvik-ra:jasik)
tamas] of Nature that come into play (at the basic and first orders of delicacy) in
qualifying any and every category, type, class, and structure of objects, states of
being, and actions. As the system gets more and more delicate, the qualification also
gets intricate and complex. Consequently, disposition affects the generation-
choice-specification-direction-materialization (GCSDM) of desires, responses,
choice, effort, action, result, experience on the one hand and conceptualization,

Page 82 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

pattern and structure (arrangement), and material form; potential-dynamic-

synoptic states; individual-group-collective levels; unification-variation-
diversification; differentiation-radialization-integration; and so on and so forth of
the entire gamut of action in its variety-range-depth. For a broad understanding,
we look at dispositionalization of language, from the angle of action in general as
affecting form (phonetics and phonology, morphology, syntax), function (speech
acts), meaning (ka:rmatics as (semantics, pragmatics, and experiential
pragmatics), discourse (its structure and meaning) at the gross level below, action,
coordination of the coordination of action and the results of action (karma and
karmaphalam) at the subtle, middle level-around, and experience of the results of
action (karmaphalabho:gam) at the higher level.

Network 2: Ka:rmik Network for Creation/Use of Language

Extensive research is needed to understand the entire theory of action and its
qualification by disposition; how language is created for living, and by living in
the context of human creation. Annambhatta’s Tarka Samgraha can be very useful
to explore the numerous possibilities in which disposition can qualify action.

In the case of WFPs, choice, effort, diversification, and internal-differentiation of

the diversified, and ICCCSA play an important role among other factors. Let us
briefly dwell on these aspects.

3. 2. 4. 1. 1. Creativity and [Choice - Variation - Diversification - Differentiation]

In the phenomenon of creativity, disposition plays the most critical role. The
creative process is controlled by the three basic and six mixed constituents of
substantiation and qualification of Nature as mentioned above. As the three basic

Page 83 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

constituents of Nature interact among themselves in varying degrees, different

options emerge leading to different choices in creativity at the macrocosmic and
microcosmic levels of form-oriented and name-oriented creation. These variations
can be very diverse. For example, in human beings, such a process of variation
takes place as a consequence of complex dispositional creativity in them and the
choices cut across domains as diverse as disposition, culture, cognition, context, and
(action, results and experience). Again, each diverse choice can undergo
differentiation into types, sub-types, classes, and sub-classes and enrich the taxonomy
to bring variety-range-depth in the system. For example, at the level of action, it
can be differentiated into mental, vocal, and physical; in addition, vocal action can
be further differentiated into semiotic and non-semiotic; semiotic into phonic and
gestural; phonic action (speech) into formal-functional-semantic-discourse levels
of language; again, the formal level can be differentiated into phonetics and
phonology, morphology, syntax, and discourse structure; and so on. Thus,
diverse choices can be differentiated to different delicacies. What is more,
dispositional creativity operates each level autonomously and creates functions in
its own capacity. As a result, rules are formed dispositional creatively according to
US LA via US Living and US Action. This is a point of departure from the formal
and functional theories. Finally, choices, diversification of choices, and further
differentiation among the diversified choices take place giving rise to an
explosion of variety-range-depth in lingual activity.

3. 2. 4. 1. 2. Disposition and Effort and Their Synchronization

At the formation, production and application level, effort plays a critical role.
Again, effort is qualified in the same three basic ways and six mixed ways. In
lingual action, at the basic level, we get three types of effort: Sa:ttvik (luminous or
intelligent), Ra:jasik (active or dynamic), and Ta:masik (inert or static). When the
required effort to produce a lingual action appropriately, efficiently, and perfectly
is made, that effort is sa:ttvik (luminous) and gives rise to the Principle of Optimal
Effort (POE). When the required effort is not made, it gives rise to two broad
options: more and less than the required effort. When more effort is made, there
will be expansion or addition in the form-function-meaning of the lingual action
resulting in ornamentation, elaboration, extension, and complexity. This is due to
Rajas (activity) and gives rise to the Principle of Complex Effort (PCE). When less
effort is made, there will be contraction or subtraction in the form-function-
meaning of the lingual action resulting in baldness, reduction, contraction, and
simplicity. This is due to Tamas (inertia) and gives rise to the Principle of Less Effort
(PLE). According to the disposition of the individuals and the collective, there
will be a synchronization of effort with disposition and action will be produced
accordingly by the Principles of Optimal, Complex, and Less Efforts. For
example, in semantic extension, complex sentences, and figures of speech, there
is ra:jasik-sa:ttvik effort. In phonetic changes such as haplology, and ellipsis,
there is ta:masik effort. In the diversification of WFPs, there is ra:jasik effort and

Page 84 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

in the productive extension of affixation into prefixation, suffixation, and

infixation, there is ra:jasik-sa:ttvik effort.

3. 2. 4. 2. Individual-Collective-Contextual-Conjunction and Standardization of Action

(ICCCSA) by Gradual Evolution of Language (GEL)
The Principle of Choice of System (P. Ch. S) extends the P.Ch. of Action (P.Ch. A)
and operates at the higher level of the design of the system. While P. Ch. A.
operates at the micro-level of action, P. Ch. S. controls the overall structure of the
language as a system at the macro-level by I-I-Iing various levels of organization
of the system in an open-ended manner. It is an expanding system but in
ka:rmikpoetic (experiential autopoeitic and dissipative structural organization –
until bifurcation points emerge and these diversify, the system expands but
remains intact with only dialectal variation; but when bifurcation points emerge
and establish themselves, the system breaks up into two and the dialect
transforms into another language). As the lingual action is carried out at the
individual level by dispositional creativity and new patterns of activity are
gradually evolved and established by I IPC (individual interpersonal
communication) at the collective level and further transmitted by CI IPC
(collective-to-individual IPC), the new patterns and structures get absorbed into the
language forming a part of the system. In that process, principles and concepts also
emerge which are discovered by the language community. Some of them may
have the status of laws. These principles and concepts are dispositional creatively
explored and exploited to produce tokens of the types of WFPs.

Synchronically, these patterns get entrenched in the system and are propagated
diachronically in wave-forms (starting from a point and flowing on to another
point in their journey to reach and wet the shore of language evolution)
establishing the pattern by ICCCSA (individual-collective-contextual-conjunction
and standardization of action). For example, the a:nushangik (the following
member in a set inheriting the properties of the former in addition to its own)
process of sentence formation is considered a gradual evolution process: sounds
becoming phonemes; phonemes joining together to form syllables; syllables
joining together to form words; and words joining together to form phrases,
clauses and sentences. Another example is the regular form -ed of the past tense
in English illustrates this process. The regular form -ed has not been created all of
a sudden but gradually evolved over time synchronically and diachronically in a
ka:rmik, gradual evolution process: creation of the new variable -ed, its application

Page 85 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

and communication by I IPC, its evaluation, experience and standardization by

the collective, its further transmission by CI IPC and continuation up to the
present stage – the process is still incomplete since there are many irregular verbs
which have not been regularized.

3. 2. 4. 3. Uniformity-Diversity-Dispositional Creativity-Autonomy in Rule-formation

As different types of variables are created by CNV (creation of new variables)
through dispositional creativity, each new variable brings in a new pattern and
all these new patterns are I-I-Ied in networks within networks (NwN) and further
these NwNs are joined in an atomic-(w)holistic functional (AWF) framework to
constitute the system. At each network level, it functions as an autonomous
prototypical network and generates its own categories in a unified network by
preserving the main features of the network. For example, compounding is a WFP
and it generates its own categories by gradual evolution. Hypocoristic formation is
another autonomous WFP and generates its own categories by gradual evolution.
Both compounding and hypocoristics do not contradict each other even though
they are opposite in their formulation: compounding involves addition while
hypocoristic formation involves shortening. However, when a new variable in
one category is interrelated-interconnected-interdependent with another variable
in another category within a network or across different networks, an inherent
formal linguistic problem crops up. It is the problem of the so called blocking in
formal linguistic theories: one rule of language formation may get in conflict
with another rule, thus mocking rule-formation. For example, in loanword
formation in Telugu, one intra-WF rule is: Don’t geminate the final consonant when
the preceding vowel is long and bifurcate the monosyllabic word into a bisyllabic word by
adding u or i: coat- Ko: . Tu; batch – bae: . tchi. However, this rule is violated in
words such as road-ro:D. Du; shot – sha:T. TU and sha:Tu; sweet – sweeT and
swee. Tu. In a similar way, the rule: when the vowel is short in a monosyllabic word,
geminate the final consonant: pen – pen. nu is violated in pen-pen without
gemination. At the inter-WF level, in principle, a compounded word cannot be
shortened since addition is a rule for its formation. However, it gets shortened
thus violating its basic rule of addition. For example, Bhuvaneswar (Bhuvana +
Eswar = Bhuvaneswar) is my name. Its hypocoristic is Bu:nu which is formed by a
complex process of truncating the first word from the compound, then Teluguizing the
truncated part with a suffix /u/ and simplifying by deaspirating, v-deletion, and
lengthening of /u/ : Bhuvan(am) + u = Bhuvanu = Bu:nu. In Optimality Theory, such
blocking is overcome by constraint ranking and violation of the constraints.
Nonetheless, such constraint ranking is problematic owing to the interference of
context, culture, dialect and choice of the constraints, which is outside the domain of
formalization of rules. To overcome this problem, dispositionalization of the rule-
formation processes is proposed.

Page 86 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

1. WFPs come into existence after a WFP is dispositionally created and

established by ICCCSA and rules are induced a posteriori from the data of the
WFP. To elaborate further, disposition GSDMs all lingual action at the individual
level and in the dynamic process of evolving it, a principle gets more attention
and as a consequence gains more depth. Eventually, as the principle is more and
more dispositionally qualified and explored at the general process level, this
qualifying is what brings about variety-range-depth as well as uniformity in
diversity and arbitrariness in complexity of language. As disposition rules
supreme in the gradual evolution of the data, the rules become disposition-sensitive
but not form-sensitive. As a result, the formal structure has to be modulated
according to the dispositional state at the time of creating and establishing the
process and the rules from it. In other words, rules are formed disposition-
sensitively by motivating formal rules through ICCCSA and not by mere formal-
structuration. Consequently, examples are grouped together into one category according
to ICCCSA taking into consideration the dispositionalization of formal rule ordering.
This will be clarified in the section Ka:rmik Linguistic Motivation of Rule Application
later.
2. The rules operate within the specific domain and cultural context in
which the WFP takes place.
3. The rules are autonomously formed with/without reference to other
rules and hence they may or may not follow/violate other rules. To explain more,
when a rule A is formulated with reference to another rule R, that rule R is taken
into consideration in forming the rule A in question. Consequently all words
formed in such a procedure will not violate the Rule R; on the other hand, if the
Rule A is formed without reference to Rule R, then there are two possibilities: 1.
Accidental conformity to the Rule R; 2. Accidental violation of the Rule R. In the
creation and development of language, both options are empirically observed.
Therefore, these rules are complementary and neither absolute nor hierarchically
constrained and violated.

In the generative framework, rules are absolute and they cannot be violated; in
OT, they are semi-absolute in the sense that the rules are universal and cannot be
discredited per se but they can be violated for choosing the best candidate by
competition. In KLT, however, the linguistic rules are not absolute, but the rules
in the Universal Science of Action (US A) are absolute and inviolable. [US Action
is the way in which Mother Nature is constituted and why it is constituted to be
this and that to be so and so and how it functions in such and such manner.] Again,
the US of Lingual Action (US LA) is absolute like the constitutive rules of a game
of chess as it is derived from the US A but the way in which languages are
formed is not absolute like the way in which a player plays a game of chess – he
may change his procedure, strategy, techniques, and tactics during the course of
his play. The rules in US LA are absolute in terms of the properties of sound in
Physics and at the same time, they are flexible because they are dispositionally

Page 87 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

GSDMed and so systemically optional, not necessarily violable – this is a point of

departure from OT. For example, in the US LA, we can propose a law that states
that sounds (phonemes) join together in a linear process. However, their joining
together in a linear process is dispositionally decided and so variable: in a set of
sounds (phonemes), A-E, the concatenation (joining together) of A, B, C, D, and E
in their various permutations and combinations is language specific but not
universal even though universal patterns may emerge owing to the common
forms of shuffling. To explain more, consonants and vowels can be combined in a
variety of ways but in the mathematical process, the rule of addition may
produce CV combinations across many languages. Here, disposition rules
supreme by GSDM and dictates rule-formation to be a posteriori and autonomous
and in the process a previously formed rule may be followed or violated. It does not
however mean that there can be no rules. What it means is that there can be rules
as they gradually evolve autonomously in a specific domain and context
with/without reference to other rules. [Domain and context play a critical role
because language formation is not strictly internal but external impinging on the
internal structure of language. For example in the context of rapid speech, owing
to shortage of time, a skill of aspiration may not be strictly observed owing to
tamas, leading to free varation. In the domain of family, owing to a relaxed and
unmonitored situation, the choice of words, sentences, and pronunciation may be
different from what they are in public.] In other words, linguitecture basically
involves complementary building but conflicts in rule-ordering may emerge
owing to the variety-range-depth of dispositional creativity.

To illustrate the principle of complementarity in linguitecture, let us take the case

of loanwords in Telugu. In Telugu loanword formation, the rules complement
each other but not conflict with each other. For example, the gemination rule, the
non-gemination rule, the native word rule, and the non-addition of a vowel suffix rule
complement each other in spite of rule violation. To illustrate, when there is a
long vowel in the monosyllabic word, no gemination takes place and the
monosyllabic word is bifurcated into a bisyllabic word with the addition of a
suffix /u/ or /i/:
(6) coat – ko:T; ko:T + u ko: . Tu; batch – bae:tch; bae:tch + i bae:. tchi.
But, we get
(7) road – ro:D; ro:D + u ro:D. Du; shot – sha:T; sha:T + u sha:. Tu and
sha:T. Tu;
and (8) pen – pen; pen + u pen. nu and pen.

In (7), the non-gemination rule is both violated and followed and again in (8), the
gemination rule is both followed and flouted. So what happens here is rules are
dispositionalized. In pennu, the gemination rule is followed but an alternative pen
is also allowed by adapting the loanword as it is without any changes. In a
similar way, both sha:Tu and sha:TTu are accommodated without any violation.

Page 88 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

Hence, rules complement each other but not compete by constraint ranking and
violation. In Australian English, there are 12 hypocoristics for the single word
sandwich: sammie, sanger, sando, sanbo, sango, sandie, sangie, sanguidge, sambo,
sammo, sammidge, and sarnie. In the loan word adaptation, we have both syllabuses
and syllabi as the plural forms of syllabus. Both of them cannot be put in a
framework of constraint ranking and violation a priori; if done so, one of them
only should be realized and not the other. On the other hand, both of them can be
given a principled account, if they are motivated a priori by ICCCSA through
dispositional choices.

3. 2. 4. 4. 4. Integration of the System by I-I-Iing, NwNing and A-W-F

As the linguistic system is being developed by rules in a systematic manner,
networks of linguistic levels develop and networks within (these) networks
(NwNs) as well as sub-networks within these networks within networks (NwN-
SNs) also develop. Again, these NwNs have to be unified in an atomic-(w)holistic
network to make the system into one uniformly organized whole. To do so, the
NwNs have to be interconnected-interrelated-interdependent to make the system
effectively usable. A detailed discussion of these three aspects will be undertaken
later in 4. 4. 2- 4 for convenience sake.

3. 2. 4. 5. Ka:rmik Processing of the Linguistic System

The entire linguistic phenomenon is not an all of a sudden explosion of the
system of language but a gradual, socioculturalspiritual, ka:rmik evolution from
one stage leading to another stage to the present stage of gradual evolution
carried out by a Ka:rmik Process.

A ka:rmik process is an experientialized process in which all action is generated-

chosen-specified-directed-materialized (GSDMed) by disposition. Disposition is a
complex of traits-knowledge-va:sana:s (see Bhuvaneswar 2013 a, b for more details
about this process) and is used for the construction of dispositional reality.
Dispositional reality is the state of disposition and is informed by
socioculturalspiritual reality which is the state of socioculturalspirituality of the
individual and the society. This dispositional reality GSDMs and constructs
actional reality in a context as contextual actional reality and actional reality. Finally
ka:rmik reality is constructed via dispositional reality via actional reality for the
fulfilment of desires and the experience of the results of action performed to fulfil
desires. The entire process of constructing ka:rmik reality from dispositional-
socioculturalspiritual-contextual actional-actional realities is dispositionally
cognized as the state of cognitive reality and materialized.

A ka:rmik process in its final form is ka:rmikarchical and so equi-archical and

becomes radial. To elaborate further, there is no ranking in language and the
strata are experientially significant in the construction of the whole which is like

Page 89 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

a wheel and hence the strata are equal like the spokes in it arranged in a radial
framework. What it means is that there is no inherent hierarchy in the whole
system since each part in the whole is as important as any other part in the
construction of experience and is critical by its presence since its absence
collapses the system. For example, phonology is as important as semantics which
is as important as syntax and vice versa since the absence of any one of them
collapses the system as a whole. The apparent linearity in processing with
beginning and end points has no hierarchical grading but is only circular with
these points becoming entry and exit points with equal values; it is neither
vertical with a top and bottom nor horizontal with first and last points with
graded values. The entire processing with its I-I-Ied NwNs in an AWF is
dispositionalized and experientialized to become ka:rmikpoeisis. Hence a ka:rmik
process is not simply holarchical in an autopoeitic and dissipational structure but
much more than that by being cause-effect experiential and hence ka:rmikarchical
and ka:rmikpoeitic.

3. 2. 5. Dispositional Cognition of the WFP

In the Cogneme Cognition of a WFP, disposition generates-chooses-specifies-
directs-materializes the conceptualization-patterning and structuration
(arrangement)-materialization of the WFP in a systematic way: as the workman, so
is the work. The Traits component in Disposition reflects in its Knowledge
component and cognizes the lingual action consisting of the phonetic,
morphological (syllable/word), and syntactic components plus the semantic component
according to the va:sana component in the context and materializes (realizes) it as
lingual action. In this process, the dispositional cognition of the cogneme is
processed through the sociocultural component as contextual lingual action as
this and that to be so and so in such and such manner: As you are, so you think; as you
think so you speak.

3. 3. Development of Complex WFP by EV

In the formation of complex word-formation processes such as affixation,
conversion, compounding, reduplication, blending, acronomy, backwords, QLB
words, backformation or portmanteau words, etc., we observe a radial process of
three factors: 1. Dispositional Creativity (DC) in Word-formation Processing; 2.
Application of Knowledge of Scientific Principles of Action (KSPA) in WFP; and 3.
Application of Habituated Performance Patterns (or acquired Skills) of Action
(HPPA) as captured in the following network.
Why: D. C. : Cause

What: KSPA: Effect Means:HPPA: How

Network 1: Dispositional Choice of the System Network

Page 90 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

Dispositional creativity is the cause (WHY) of WFP. It impacts on the knowledge

of Universal Science of Action as reflected in the Universal Science of Lingual
Action and impels the content of the word-formation processes (WHAT) through
the skills acquired from the habituated performance patterns of lingual action
determining the manner of word-formation (HOW). In the process, svabha:vam
(disposition) erupts innovation of a WFP from sheer Dispositional Functional
Pressure by a flash of creativity (FOC).

The innovation can take place in two ways: adhya:sam (superimposition) and
apava:dam (ablation). In adhya:sam, there is no knowledgeable intentional
exclusion of the other variables as in optimality theory; what happens is the
creator of a WFP hits upon the idea by a flash of creativity without reference to the
other variables. For example, abbreviation as a WFP might have been thought of
independently as a word-shortening process without the rejection of other
processes such as affixation or compounding. On the other hand, in apava:dam,
there is knowledgeable intentional exclusion of the other variables by rejecting
them as not this, not this but that process of elimination by a rigorous process
using vimarsca (analyticity) – the same is also true in the choice of the system at
both the lower and higher levels of language; in other words, it operates at both
the sub-network and the main network under Networks-within-Networks.

After innovation (i.e., creation of a new variable (CNV)), the innovated form gets
established to give the established form (EF). This EF becomes the base for future
WFPs and productive extension of the (new) variable (PEV) takes place, usually,
by Analogical Word-formation Processing (A WF P) by Token-formation (TF)
and Categorization (Cat). As a concept of a WFP is subjected to analyticity (powers
of observation, analysis and classification, logic and reasoning, interpretation,
and identification), a pattern and structure (arrangement) of the concept emerges.
Finally, this P&S of the Concept is materialized by the application of HPPA
(Habituated Performance Patterns (or acquired Skills) of Action)).

(5) DFP DC FOC DChA Innovation [Concept P&S Word]

ICCCSA EF PEV A WF P by TF and Cat
DChS Development of the Linguistic System
[Dispositional Creativity (DC); Flash of Creativity (FOC); Dispositional Ch. of Action
(D.Ch. A); ); established form (EF); Token-formation (TF); Categorization (Cat);
Dispositional Choice of System (D. Ch. S)]
This radial process of WFP which is a ka:rmik process is carried out at the
individual level of performance of lingual action as well as its collective level as a
system by gradual evolution. As a WFP is envisaged from DC by the choice of a
creative principle, it is established by ICCCSA (individual-collective- contextual-
conjunction and standardization- of action). Thus, a new word-formation process

Page 91 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

is created. It is further transmitted and applied to create its tokens and categories
in their variety-range-depth.
Part II
4. Motivation of the Major English Word-formation Processes in KLT
The Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory evolved in a bottom-up process of IUP (intuitive
understanding of a phenomenon), TS (troubleshooting), and developing PSS
(problem solving strategies) and dispositional creatively discovering or creating a
solution to the concerned problem. In the process of finding solutions, the
procedure is linear and involves the following five stages:
1. IUP and TS; 2. Data Collection; 3. Patterning and Structuration of the Data by
Descriptive Classification; 4. Discovery of Concepts and Principles by Analyticity and
Reversal of Ordering by Effect-to-Cause Logic, and 5. Causal Motivation and Procedure
Confirmation by Dispositionalization.

The five stage procedure as outlined in the Procedure Section 1. 2 (Page 4) will be
followed to motivate WFPs in English.

1. 2. KLT Procedure
In practice, KLT is applied.

Stage 1. Data Collection

The data for this plenary speech has already been collected by Quirk, et al (1986)
in their Comprehensive Grammar of Modern English. This gives us the WHAT of
language, namely, the words for knowing the word-formation processes in
question for analysis.

Stage 2: Patterning and Structuring the Collected Data (by Induction,

Comprehensive Induction)
This part is also done by Quirk, et al (1986) in their Comprehensive Grammar of
Modern English. They have arranged the data into clearly identifiable categories,
types, and classes.

From the development of systemic networks of choice, we come to the

conclusion that language is as it is NOT because of what it does from a purely
functionalist goal but it gradually evolved to be as it is by its dispositional
conceptualization of lingual action as a whole (i.e., form-function-meaning-style-
context taken together in an integrated framework) as a tool which evolved into a
system which further evolved into a resource in an I-I-I network within networks
(N-w-N) in an atomic-(w)holistic functional set-up as explained below.

Page 92 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION PROCESSES

1. Affixation
2. Conversion,
[3. Back-formation, 4. Backwords]
English [5. Reduplication, 6. Compounding,
WFPs 7. Blending]
[8. Clipping, 9. Dimunitives]
[10. Acronym, 11. Initialism]
[12. Borrowing, 13. Calque]

This gives the HOW of language in terms of its Organization. (See the PPTs for
the P&S of the data). The data and its patterning and structuration have not been
given here since they are already available in Quirk, and since it is voluminous,
but shown in the PPts for want of space here.)

Stage 3: Underlying Concepts and Principles (by Transduction)

From an observation of the various patterns and their structuration as
instantiated in the numerous words in English, the following three important
concepts and principles have been discovered:
1. Mathematical Concept of Computation by the Principles of Addition, Subtraction, and
Multiplication; 2. Phenomenal Concept of Material Quantification and Spatial Ordering;
and
3. Material Concept of Transformation.
This gives us the HOW the language (i.e., English WFPs) is created, developed,
and organized in terms of Chosen Principles .
They are captured in the following network for a quick reference along with the
major types of WFPs generated by them.

Page 93 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

Stage 4: Systemic Networks of Choice (by Ka:rmikoduction)

According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory, the guNa:s sattva, rajas, and tamas
qualify the cognition of action in their respective ways and colour it accordingly.
For example, tamas is inertia and its associated qualities are confusion, distortion,
simplification, reduction, etc. that spring from inertia. Consequently, the STM
principles of word-formation arrived at by transduction are a product of tamas
and hence ta:masik. Sattva is luminosity and is associated with such qualities as
intelligence, analyticity, equilibrium, balance, correctness, appropriateness,
correct order, etc. The mathematical principles of word-formation such as
addition, subtraction, multiplication require intelligence, analysis and so can be
considered products of sattva and hence sa:ttvik. Rajas is activity and its
associated qualities are speed, intensity, elaboration, complexity, redundancy,
decoration, etc. In the case of transformation, there is extension of the process
from X to Y but there is also the case of retaining the same form (static) which is a
quality of inertia. Hence, we can say that it is a combination of rajas qualified by
tamas and hence it is ta:masik-ra:jasik.

Since there is no one-to-one correspondence between function and form-

meaning-choice, it is difficult to systematically pin down which function causes
which form to be constructed and used. For example, in English, the noun
invitation is left out and the verb invite is used instead by choice. WHY? The
function cannot motivate this change in choice because a form invitation is
already there to perform this function of naming. Therefore, there must be some

Page 94 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

other outside function that brought about this change. So, we need to motivate
the choice of different word-formation processes from a higher level, the level of
disposition which GCSDMs all lingual action according to the following
equations.

(6) Principle of Action: Disposition

Desire Effort Action Result Experience

(7 ) Principle of Choice of action:

Disposition Dispositional Bias Response Bias Choice
Variation Action Result Experience
Disposition impels desire (and intention) which leads to effort. Effort leads to
action which gives results that are experienced in a context. This is a basic
equation of how action is generated. Again, from another angle, disposition
generates a dispositional bias towards this and that action to be so and so action
in such and such manner, and this Dispositional Bias (D.B.) leads to response bias
(as understood in psychology). Response Bias (R. B.) further leads to Choice of
Objects/States of Being/Action thus bringing about Variation in the performance
of action.

This choice is cognized to be this or that as so and so in such and such manner.
This unit cognition is indicated by the term cogneme in Ka:rmik Linguistic
Theory. Finally what is dispositionally cognized is realized in the context. Thus
we get a word formed in a particular pattern and structure in a particular
phonetic form. (see Bhuvaneswar 2013b for a detailed discussion of how QLB
Affixation WFP is created and spread). Such a word is standardized by ICCCSA
(as already shown in a graph) and stored in the cultural memory of the language
community.

Qutational Lexical Bifurcation is a process created in Telugu written journalism

in which a word is bifurcated into two words by quotation marks to convey a
meaning within a meaning to create a new contextual meaning: da: ruNa is a
single word which means ‘terrible’. However, the form can accommodate
another word ‘ruNa’ within the same word. This is its formal property which
became the source for a new function. The reporter has exploited this formal
property to create a word within a word by separating it with quotation marks
within the same word: da:‘ruNa’ to imply a new word nested within a word and
suggest a new meaning by contextualizing it with an event of farmers taking
loans from the banks which could not be repayed and thus which became a
terrible burden on them. This process emerged not because of any real functional
need for brevity - in fact the function of brevity is created from the form itself - but
because of a Dispositional Functional Pressure for novelty, which is optional, in
the news reporter – this is so because such a process was never used before for

Page 95 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

decades. Later on this nelogistic process became a trend and became a pattern
and became a WFP in Telugu spilling into English also. A similar procedure also
should occur in other types of word-formation in English. For example, the
recent intrusion of duplifixation from Hebrew into English is not because of any
functional necessity but because of language contact and its influence in the
recent times only. This is another problem for functionalists to address – WHY
only now and not before?

These processes are succinctly captured by the cognition graphs in KLT given
below.

Network 4. Cognition of lingual action process and its Realization Network

Network 5. Cognition of Cogneme and its Realization Network

In view of the above analysis, it is reasonable to posit a higher level of
organization in the taxonomy to motivate choice in the network as follows.

Page 96 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

Sattva

(8) Disposition Rajas Dispositional Bias Response Bias

CHOICE of X
Tamas

Consequently, the Network 3 should be redrawn to motivate choice from the

level of disposition in the light of Equation 8. Thus, this stage gives the HOW of
language in terms of its Dispositional Conceptualization.

Stage 5: Motivating Ka:rmik Linguistic Basis

This is only an interpretive stage of how the dispositional reality constructed via
the actional reality becomes the ka:rmik reality of the lingual actor as the
sociculturalspiritual, contextual lingual actor as the dispositional,
socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, lingual actional actor. Since human
beings perform action to fulfil their desires for the experience of the results of
their action, we can say that the words created dispositionally by various word-
formation processes are used dispositionally within utterances through
Networks-within – Networks of [sentences – phrases – words] within discourse
within a context in an atomic-(w)holistic functional framework to coordinate the
coordination of action for the fulfilment of their desires and the experience of the
results of their actions, the WFPs are ka:rmik. These processes are captured by
the following networks.

Holarchy of Ka:rmik Reality

Dispositional Reality (+ K. R)
Cognitive Reality [+ D. R. (+ K. R)]
Socioculturalspiritual Reality
[ + C. R. (+ D. R. (+ K. R.))]
Ka:rmik Reality Contextual Actional R.
[+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D. R. (+ K. R.)))]
Mental Action
Actional Reality Vocal Action +
Physical Action
[CA.R (+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D. R. (+ K. R.)))]

Network 2: Holarchy of Ka:rmik Reality

2/7/2016

Page 97 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

In the holarchy of ka:rmik reality network, it is shown how ka:rmik reality is

constructed in an a:nushangik manner from dispositional reality (which is the
state of affairs obtained at the dispositional level) to cognitive reality (which is
the state of affairs obtained at the cognitive level) to SCS Reality (which is the
state of affairs obtained at the SCS level) to contextual actional reality (which is
the state of affairs obtained at the C. A. level) to lingual actional reality as
networks-within-networks shown in the next network.

N-w-N Diagram of Ka:rmik Reality

A. R
CA. R
SCS. R
D. R

Cog. R

5. Conclusion
In the analysis conducted above, it has been shown how words are created –
applied- transmitted – retained – perpetuated in the ka:rmik linguistic paradigm
which integrates form-function-meaning-cognition-disposition in a unified
linguistic framework and shows that language is as it is because it is intended to
be like that to do what it does.

References
1. Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2013 a). “Proverbial Linguistics: Theory and Practice
in the Ka:rmik Linguistic Paradigm - Creation and Development of Proverbs
(Fourth Part of the Plenary Speech). (Eds. ). BENAYOUN, Jean-
Michel/KÜBLER, Natalie/ZOUOGBO, Jean-Philippe (2013). Sainte Jemme:
Universitaire Sainte Jemme
2. Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2013 b). “Dispositional Creativity in QLB as a Telugu
Word-Formation Process: Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory”. IJDL, Vol.
XLII No. 2, June 2013. Thiruvananthapuram: Dravidian Linguistics
Association. 150 -195.

Page 98 of 31
The Indo-Kyrgyz Linguist Bhuvaneswar WFPs In English: A KLT Approach 2017

3. Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2013 c). “Deconstruction of a Poem I: A Ka:rmik

Literary Perspective (Theory)”. In: Language Forum, Part II, (ed) Prashant Mishra,
Bahri Publications, New Delhi.
4. Halliday, MAK, and Matthissen, M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional
Grammar Third Edition. London: Arnold
5. Quirk, Randolph, et al (1986). A Comprehensive Grammar of Modern English.
London: Longman
*****

Page 99 of 31