Some "Eastern" and "Western" Perspectives
and Perspectives of Perspectives
Tlie study of 'Indigenous Grammar(s)'
in Cross-cultural Perspective'
To Claus Vogel on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday
By Hannes Knfffka, Bonn
Abstract
This paper tries to investigate examples of linguistic knowledge
and attitude that "Westerners" have, or had at one time about
"Easterners" concerning some linguistic concepts and notions,
and about the art of linguistics/grammatical analysis as a whole.
The operational status and practical impact of the East-West-
dichotomy, and some insights from grammatical traditions other
than "Western" will be discussed.
Two facts are the focus of attention: (1) some linguistic "truths"
never made it across the Atlantic (either way). (2) Some made it,
but were changed in specific ways. There are, of course, several
"Atlantics" with a similar "barrier"-function. What do the modi¬
fications of linguistic thought mean (to all parties involved), and
how did they come about?
• This is an extended version of a paper read at the 25th SLE-Conference held at Galway, Aug. 28 -Sept. 2, 1992. I would like to thank all participants in the discussion, notably J. H. Robins, for valuable comments. 1 also want to express
thanks to my Bonn colleagues who helped me conceal my ignorance of various
grammars, more or less successfully, in particular T. R. Chopra, R. Kaschewsky,
R.Trauzettel, C.Vogel, S.Wild, and H.P. Schmidt from UCLA.
0. Introduction
This paper tries to make a single point: It seems worthwhile for
linguists to look a little more closely and systematically into the
transport or non-transport of ideas, notions of our field from one
culture into another and, maybe, make it an issue of research and
discussion. As the main basis of reference so-called (ancient) in¬
digenous grammars are taken, like e.g. the Arab grammarians'
schools of Basra and Kufa, or ancient Indic grammarians like the
school of Pänini, including the works of Bhattoji Drksita,
Varadaräja, Patafijali, etc., and ancient Chinese, Tibetan, Maya,
Old Norsk, and many other indigenous grammars. In terms of
material data investigated, I will focus on the reception of ancient
Indic Indigenous Grammar (henceforth IIG) in the West, in par¬
ticular in Europe and in the United States in the field of linguis¬
tics proper.
I shall proceed in 4 chapters:
- (1) The theoretical frame of reference: What of a particular
indigenous grammar is received abroad?
- (2) How is it received, and what insights can be gained from
this? I want to discuss an exemplary set of quotations from
standard introductory books or textbooks of linguistics as evi¬
dence. In talking about the what and the how, one has to take
into consideration what has not been recorded, not explicitly
been referred to, or even thought of.
- (3) In chapter 3, I shall discuss a (very small) selecdon of in¬
gredients of ancient indigenous grammars that seem to be
worthwhile to be taken into consideration (like many others not
being mentioned). I will also describe briefiy a project run at
Bonn University LinguisUcs Department concerning the cross-
cultural study of indigenous grammar(s), ancient and modern,
from a culture-contrastive perspective.
- (4) In chapter 4, I shall draw up, as conclusions, a few practi¬
cal consequences for linguists studying indigenous grammars.
It should be mentioned that this paper does not make any histori¬
ographic claims whatsoever. Neither do I want to claim to be a
specialist in IIG. There is a well-known saying in Sanskrit: "The
study of grammar takes 12 years" (N.B. full fime study with a
pundit). As will be discussed later in more detail, IIG presents
some "intrinsic" problems which make the study of it somewhat
difficult.
I agree with Cardona 1969,3 stating the overall methodological
problems of comparisons of indigenous grammars in general and
Indic Indigenous Grammar in particular: "I do not think we have
yet arrived at a sufficiently detailed understanding of Indian
grammatical methods to make a comparison with Western meth¬
ods truly useful. After such an understanding has been attained,
it will be both welcome and valuable to make comparisons." The
comparisons of this kind that have been made (e.g. Misra 1966;
Staal 1967) risk both being superficial and committing the error
alluded to by Thieme (apud Sheets, 1961: p.X): "Sometimes, I
think, we Western scholars are apt to be more interested in our
own theories concerning the Sanskrit grammarians than in their
actual teachings."
Most statements below confirm, directly or indirectly, this dic¬
tum of Thieme's. I fully agree with the tenor of Cardona's argu¬
ment, if it is applied to full-fiedged comparisons of IIG with
grammatical traditions in other countries on an expert grammat-
icologist's level. Ancient Indic grammarians were undoubtedly
right in stating that it takes years to really understand the
grammatical systems and the grammatical tradition as a whole.
I tend to disagree with Cardona, if a general or even a stronger
than the exisdng neglect of IIG in the curriculum of Western
students of general linguisdcs is concerned. It is both possible and
necessary to make reference to indigenous grammar(s) in intro¬
ductory textbooks and teaching of general linguistics in the West.
For Western students of linguistics, some adapted, necessarily
popularized versions of IIG would be adequate and would have
to be taken into consideration, if things were to be changed at all.
The question is to what degree simplificafion and popularizadon
of IIG can be administered without serious loss in substance.
There is not an overall answer to this question: It is an empirical
question that has to be decided by trial and error rather than by
theoretical reflection alone.
This is, by far, not all that exists of problems. It is impossible
to state all those ingredients of IIG that could or should be incor¬
porated into the Western students' general linguistic curriculum.
There will be differences of opinion how one should simplify and
adapt e.g. a particular grammatical rule. There will also be differ¬
ences of opinion which constituents of IIG are more important
than others. Thus, I can only give a very limited, non-represen¬
tative selection of items of IIG which from my own perspective
(1) are worth being known and (2) can be studied by Western
students of general linguistics without burdening them with a too
heavy load of indologists' knowledge, and without reducing mat¬
ters to a level too simplistic for useful insight into IIG. An issue
that Western students could and should be confronted with is, for
example, the system of the shivasütras, their status as algebraic
formulas and their function as some sort of "Meta-grammatical"
rules (cf. chapter 3 below).
As far as Western authors of introductory linguistic books and
textbooks are concerned, there will be no concern with what they
know about ancient Indic grammar, but with what they write
about it, what is actually expressed in linguistic introductions.
What people know and what they write about is not necessarily
the same, of course. So, if judgements on linguisdc authors like
Bloomfield, Crystal, Gleason,^ etc. are made below, this has
to be kept in mind.
To end the introductory remarks: I have selected just a few
particular aspects which seemed relevant, rather than more gen¬
eral trivial aspects of intercultural transport of scientific linguistic
ideas, nodons, etc. By trivial is meant here that, e.g. for practical
(polidcal, technical, material) reasons, there was lack of opportu¬
nity of contact, no possibility to get foreign books or to study
foreign languages, lack of interest due to political propaganda. In
all such cases, there will hardly be any intercultural scientific
interchange and transport of ideas. Such constellations can be
very interesting in their own right. It goes without saying that
there are no 'trivial' data per se here. Just such cases are being
excluded here in which it simply was not possible to transport
hnguistic notions or ideas from one culture to another due to a
given external constellation. I am interested in cases in which a
transport was possible, but was not achieved and administered
anyway. I am aware of ethnocentric limitations applying to my
own and other Westerners' perspecdve. As long as this is granted,
it is worthwhile presenting it.
What is an "Indigenous Grammar" and what is not cannot
be decided in a Western "God's-own-truth"-fashion. Basically,
Government and Binding, X'-theory, etc., can be considered an
' H. H.Gleason Jr. being a good example, see chapter 2 below; he spent two
years in Bombay and Poona, yet does not make much reference to IIG in his
introduction.
indigenous (North-American-East-coast) grammar as well as
Päriini's grammar, or Tibetan or Arabian Indigenous Grammar.^
It is safe to say that the overall attitude of Western grammarians
(of various denominations) did not foster progress of in-depth
grammatical analysis of languages and cultures other than English
and a handful of other European languages. I can see no reason
why this has to be so and why a knowledge of IIG could not be
of greatest interest to modern theoreticians of grammar.
/. Transport, Non-Transport and Semi-Transport of Linguistic
Ideas
What of Indigenous Grammar (IG) is or has been transported
by whom, for what purpose, with what outcome, in what fashion?
As mentioned before, this quesdon implies the quesdons: What
is not being transported or semi-transported and why? It is evi¬
dent that every linguist could come up with a considerable reper¬
toire of examples of non-transport depending on his personal ex¬
perience in a particular setting. To name just a few:
- Think of what has not been transported of classical taxonomie
structuralism or of experimental psycholinguistics in the 50s
and the 60s from the United States to Europe.
- Or of early language typology and language üniversals research
in the United States, which went unnoticed for decades in West¬
ern European research. The same is true for the "opposite"
direction, of course.
- Think of what has never made it across the Atlantic of Russian
and Eastern European linguistic research.
- Think of what of language typology and language üniversals
research in Germany in the 60s and 70s, and even in the 80s,
has not been transported across the Atlantic.
^ This, of course, does not try to neglect the differences in status, scientific achievement, explicitness etc. that exist between "Indigenous East Coast North American" grammars and, for example, ancient Arabian Indigenous Grammars.
The point is here that no grammatical tradition, of a denomination whatsoever, should be eclectic, orthodox, solipsistically self-content. Rather than being insen¬
sitive against the (existence of) other schools of grammar, every adequate modern grammar, including the ones mentioned, should be interested in getting a fruitful exchange of ideas going between all other Indigenous Grammars, in particular rewarding ones like IIG.
- Think of what is, normaUy, known in U.S. hnguistics depart¬
ments on European texthnguistics, pragmatics, etc.
There is an even stronger lack of communication also in recent
developments, as e.g. forensic linguistics, in which a few people
on both sides of the Atlantic in the very sense of the phrase did
their own thing, and were not even aware that there was some¬
thing quite similar being done on the other side.
- Think of the fact that most fields and methods of Applied Lin¬
guistics, except for foreign language teaching, never really
made it into universities in the "Third World". This example
also shows that the Atlantic is not the only borderline for (non-)
transport of sciendfic (linguisdc) ideas, but that, in fact, there
are many "Adantics".
2. Western Linguists' Accounts of Indigenous Grammar(s)
2.0 In this chapter, the main concern is with what we do know
as teachers and students of linguistics, and what we don't know
about various IGs. This question can be examined at least under
two different aspects. One could start out with notions and con¬
cepts of a particular IG and ask how they have been accounted
for in Western linguistics. A few examples of this perspective are
given in chapter 2.1.
Secondly, one could start out from Western "sources" and "en¬
tities" of linguistic learning, e.g. introductions to the field of lin¬
guistics and introductory textbooks, and ask if and to what degree
grammatical traditions other than Western are taken into account.
This perspective will be followed up in chapter 2.2.
2/ Some of notions IG 'unknown' in Western linguistics
There are some IG(s) one does not get acquainted with at all,
as a rule, when studying linguistics in Germany or in the U.S. I
do not have any more detailed informafion about studying linguis¬
tics in other European countries, like the Scandinavian countries,
England, the Netherlands, France, Italy, etc., but probably the
picture is similar to the situation in German universities. When
studying General Linguistics, or Historical (Indo-European) Lin-
guistics for that matter, one does not hear anything about Arabic
IG, Chinese IG, Tibetan IG, etc. One may hear that there was a
grammatical school of Arab Indigenous Grammar in Basra and
Kufa in Iraq each, but, normally, nothing more.
The name of Al-Khalil Ben Ahmad and his dictionary Kitab
al-Ayn are widely unknown. The entries in this dictionary are not
in alphabetical, but in phonetical order, beginning with velar
sounds and ending with labial sounds, probably a somewhat rev¬
olutionary arrangement for the traditions of the Basra school to
which he belonged, taken over from Indic grammarians' usage.
As Abdel-Hamid 1970, 84 has pointed out, the contact with Indic
grammatical work is likely to have arisen from the Indic commu¬
nity in Basra. As Abdel-Hamid l.c. also states, Arabic grammar¬
ians took over Greek grammatical thought in quite a different
fashion from the way Ladn grammarians did, e.g., the tripartite
division of parts of speech {ism = "noun", ßl = "verb", harf =
"particle"). This in itself would be worth studying by Western
students of linguistics, because thereby one would much better
understand the special denominations of various grammatical
traditions at a time.
The same amount of neglect applies, e.g., to Abü Bisr Ibn
'Uthmän b. Qanbar, called Sibawayh, and his grammar named
Al-Kitäb fl al-Nahw, simply known as Al-Kitäb, "the book (par
excellence)" which is considered not only the first systematic
grammatical treatment of Arabic, but also of phonetics. It is in¬
teresting to note that the Arabs seem to have been the first to state
the importance of texts explicidy, whereas the Indians started out
from the sentence, the Greeks from the word as the basic concept
of linguistic analysis.
There are quite a few interesting data about, e. g., Tibetan gram¬
mar, which the general linguist (including myselO as a rule does
not learn anything about but which he could study very reward-
ingly for his own training in the field, not just for some special
knowledge of an exodc branch.
To give just a few examples of it, which I all owe to
R. Kaschewsky There are two standard works of Tibetan In¬
digenous Grammar (TIG), of which Thon-mi sambhota is sup-
Mainly from a lecture given within a project at Bonn University Linguistics Department (described briefly in chapter 3).
posed to be the author: (1) Sum-cu-pa ("The Thirty"), and rTags-
kyPjug-pa ("quoting of the sex of the letters"). Tibetan grammar
dating back to the 13th century A.D. is derived from Sanskrit
grammar. It has developed a unique trait, however, which, as far
as I know, is not parallelled by any other grammar dealt with
here. TIG takes pains to define the "sex" of the letters: consonants selge are called "(the) clarifying (ones)", vowels are called "(the) unclear (ones)".
The grammafical descripfion of cases in TIG is meaningful,
beyond the scope of grammar itself, for tantric meditation. The
two grammatical standard treatises are both part of the Tanjur,
the canonical set of scripts. There is a close relationship between
grammar and religious thought, somewhat different from modern
Western traditions (at least in the customary sense of the word
"religion").
Tibetan IG could and is to be studied within the general frame
of studies of indigenous traditions and culture. It may thus be an
object of anthropological linguisdcs rather than grammafical
theory. In this fashion, a perspective broad enough to include the
interdependencies and interreladons between the various "sys¬
tems" of cultural traditions would be secured. This holds for many
IGs around the world, also in the sense that an "anthropological
linguistic" perspecdve would do the analysis of modern (Western)
grammatical theory very good.
2.2 References to Indigenous Grammar(s) in General Linguistic
Textbooks and Introduction^
To what extend and in which way is IG being referred to in
well-known and wide-spread introductions to the field of general
linguistics and in other linguisdc text-/handbooks? As mentioned
earlier, the quesdon of what is being referred to has to be oper-
ationalized how references to IG are made.
' Two remarks seem of critical importance for the overall interpretation of the following:
(1) The heuristic taxonomy of texts and books given below does not imply a value statement of one kind or another concerning IGs, nor for the textbooks analyzed.
(2) It is, of course, necessary to compare references of IIG relative to the genre of the linguistic book in question. In other words, it is not sensible to compare introductions to linguistics, handbooks of Indo-European Historical Linguistics, histories of linguistics etc., monographs of Vedic grammar, books on India of a more general denomination all at once.
The first dimension to be taken into consideration is what
could be mentioned in introductory books of linguistics. Infor¬
mation about IG that is not available with and from specialists or
unknown IGs could, of course, not be accounted for in the lin¬
guistic literature.
This question is examined by looking at references made to,
probably, the most widely-known indigenous grammar, the an¬
cient Indic grammar of Pänini (henceforth, somewhat slovenly,
also IIG). I have looked at several introductions to linguistics and
handbooks of linguistics with standard reference to the history of
linguistic thought. There are quite a few in which IIG is not men¬
tioned at all', let alone Tibetan, Chinese, Arabic IG, etc. Here
the question can be left open whether this is to be considered a
real deficit of an introduction into the field of linguisdcs.
Information on IIG has been available in great scholarly depth
and detailed explicitness in the literature for decades, at least
since about the end of the last century. Many standard works were
known to people like Leonard Bloomfield in the U.S. and to
most of the Neogrammarians and other members of the Leipzig
School. This applies even more to more recent works in recent
times, for which I just want to refer to Allen 1953; Böhtlingk
1899; Belvalkar 1915; Birwe 1961, 1966; Cardona 1965, 1967,
1968, 1969; Kielhorn (1965); Kiparsky/Staal 1969; Konow
1943; Liebich 1919; Renou 1942; Salus 1970; Staal 1962, 1965;
Thieme 1935, 1957 and others.
The point is that the books by Allen, Cardona, Kiparsky,
Staal and others have been and still are available in linguists'
communities and libraries in the U.S. All books listed have been
available in the German linguistic community for decades, but
have not been accounted for, in any substantial way, in introduc¬
tions to general linguistics up to the present time. It is safe to say
that the facts about IIG were "known" in the West and could have
been known with linguistic students in the West for a long time.
Introductions and handbooks of linguistics that do mention
IIG, interestingly enough, do so unanimously in terms of high
appraisal of the achievements of ancient Indic grammarians.
' Examples are, e.g.; Bunting 1972, Chomsky 1964, 1965, 1966, Helbig 1970,
Hockett 1958, Jespersen 1924, Palmer 1936, Zarnikow 1974.
They can be classified, in a non-exhaustive, heuristic and very
preliminary fashion, into 3 classes:
- (1) books that give an overall appraisal of IIG without any
further explanation;
- (2) books that give an "account cum explanation", however
short.
More than approximately 95 per cent of all linguistic introduc¬
tions and introductory textbooks investigated belong to classes (1)
and (2), disregarding the number of introducdons and textbooks
of linguistics that do not make any reference at all to IIG (or other
IGs).
- (3) The "exceptions": Books with a detailed and in-depth ac¬
count (including text examples and explanations) of IIG
grammadcal system(s) as a whole and in some cases even a
discussion of particular items, e.g. grammatical rules. This
class, to my knowledge, consists of two works (or authors re¬
spectively) only, as far as the field of general linguistics is con¬
cerned.
In the following classes (1) to (3) are discussed in more detail,
with quotations of passages from introductory linguistic books as
evidence.
Class (1): Global appraisal of IIG without a detailed descripdon
and exemplification:
R. Anttila, 1972, 39 (chapter "Wridng and Language"):
"... Suprasegmentals are the last phonological features to be
accommodated by alphabets; their inclusion is mainly due to
modern linguistics, although there were antecedents in Greek
Alexandria and India ..."
H.H. Gleason jr., 1961, 462 (chapter "Some languages and lan¬
guage families"):
"... The Indic branch has a long literary history. A large part
of this literature is in Sanskrit, still widely used as a literary
and liturgie language in India. Sanskrit is of great interest too,
because of the high development of descriptive linguistic
technique culminating in the work of Pänini in the 4th cen¬
tury B. C, and because of the stimulus which the introduction
of Sanskrit to Western scholarship gave to the development of modern linguistic science ..."
R.A. Hall jr., 1964, 300:
"... Even then, the Greeks and the Romans, and also the
ancient Hindus, were primarily interested in their own lan¬
guage alone, in that of their own times, and from the point
of view of 'correctness'. They had little sense of historicity,
and little interest in things plebeian or barbarian. And, most
important of all, even though they had techniques of descrip¬
tion of their own language, they had none for comparison of
different languages or for analysis of historical change ..."
W.G. Moulton, 1969, 14sq ("The nature and History of Linguis¬
tics") :
"... One of the greatest linguistic achievements of all times
was also one of the earliest: the highly detailed Sanskrit gram¬
mar attributed to the Hindu Scholar Päiiini which is dated
about 300 B. C. ..."
ibid., p. 15:
"... Though modern linguistics has been influenced by these
early writings, especially those of the Sanskrit grammarians,
it is based primarily on the scholarly tradition of Europe ..."
M.Joos, 1969, 19sq ("Phonology, Phonemics and Acoustic
Phonetics") :
"... Before the twentieth century, interesting things were said,
and published, about particular languages; but the question
of what constitutes an adequate description had never been
discussed, and therefore, it is not surprising that every earlier
description (except the description of classical Sanskrit devel¬
oped in India about two thousand years ago) leaves us in
ignorance about some of the most important things to be
known about the language in question ..."
R.W. Langacker, 1968; ^1973, 7:
"... A significant linguistic tradition developed in India long
ago, but it was not known in the Western world until the
nineteenth century. The religious hymns of the Hindus were
composed in Sanskrit around 1200-800 B.C. Over the centu¬
ries, Sanskrit, of course, changed. Like religious leaders in
other cultures, however, the Hindu priests believed that the
efficacy of their rehgious practices could not be assured un¬
less their renditions of the ritual hymns were completely faith¬
ful to the original with respect to both text and pronunciation.
Hindu grammar consequendy developed as an attempt to
preserve the religious language in full detail. The classic work
of this tradition, dated around 400 B.C., is attributed to a
grammarian named Pänini. To this day, Pänini's grammar
has not been surpassed as a concise and insightful description
of Sanskrit. It has dominated Indian grammar throughout the
centuries ..."
ibid., p.9:
"... These philological advances, it is interesdng to note, can
be attributed in part to the influence of the linguistic tradition
of ancient India. Previously unknown in the West, this tradi¬
tion came to the attention of philologists when they realized
that Sanskrit was related to the major European languages.
The analytic techniques that had long ago been applied in the
description of Sanskrit have been a significant factor in the
evolution of modern linguistics ..."
O. Jespersen', 1922, 20
"... The earliest masters in linguisdc observation and classi¬
fication were the old Indian grammarians. The language of
the old sacred hymns had become in many points obsolete,
but religion required that not one iota of these revered texts
should be altered, and a scrupulous oral tradition kept them
unchanged from generation to generation in every minute
particular. This led to a wonderfully exact analysis of speech
sounds, in which every detail for articuladon was carefully
described, and to a no less admirable analysis of grammatical
forms, which were arranged systematically and described in
a concise and highly ingenious, though artificial, terminology.
The whole manner of treatment was endrely different from
the methods of Western grammarians, and when the works
of Pänini and other Sanskrit grammarians were first made
known to Europeans in the nineteenth century, they pro-
' Jespersen 1922 and Crystal 1971 could also be classified into class (2) below.
There is some gradual difference versus the books listed there, however, which suggests that in "real life" it is a gradience of a continuum rather than distincUy different classes.
foundly influenced our own linguisdc science, as witnessed,
among other things, by the fact that some of the Indian tech¬
nical terms are still extensively used, for instance those de¬
scribing various kinds of compound nouns. In Europe,
grammatical science ..."
D. Crystal, 1971, 44 sq:
"... The Hindu priests had begun to realize (around the fifth
century B. C.) that the language of their oldest hymns, Vedic
Sanskrit, was no longer the same, either in pronunciation or
grammar, as the contemporary language ...
The solution adopted in order to preserve the early states of
the language from the effects of time was to determine exactly
what the salient features of Vedic Sanskrit were, and to write
them down as a set of rules - in other words, describe the
grammar and pronunciation ofthe old language. In this way,
there would be an authoritative text, one not bound down by
the vagaries of individual oral tradition. The earliest evidence
we have of this fact is the work carried out by Pänini in the
fourth century B.C., in the form of a set of around 4,000
aphoristic statements about the structure of the language,
known as sutras. This was, in fact, a grammar of Sanskrit,
and its effect went far beyond the original intentions of the
authors. For in producing this work, a great number of
phonetic and grammatical minutiae were presented, and
methodological and theoretical principles and ideas devel¬
oped, some of which are still used in modern linguistics ..."
Though the list of introductions and quotations* given above is far
from being exhaustive in terms of introductions to lingustics, I
suspect that more than 80 per cent of introductions and intro¬
ductory textbooks to linguistics follow basically the same pattern:
There is unanimous and unrestricted appraisal of IIG, but no
explanation why this is so, no detailed exemplification of the
items and ingredients worth being praised in IIG. It is un¬
doubtedly justified to state that this way of global appraisal and
reference to IIG is a topos in introductions and introductory text¬
books to General Linguistics still today.
' In all books mentioned, the passages quoted are the only reference to IIG.
Class (2) refers to introductions to linguistics and introductory
textbooks which are considerably smaller in number than the
group discussed above. It is characterized by the fact that not only
an overall appraisal of the great achievements of IIG and the
influence that IIG had, but rather a more substantial description
of elements of IIG is given, including the influence it had on other
grammatical traditions. In this group of introductions, still no
detailed discussion of language material of Sanskrit is given, nor
are any specific rules discussed and exemplified. No original San¬
skrit words or grammatical rules are quoted, which marks a clear
distinction of this class from class (3) below.
J. Lyons, 1968, 19 ("Introducdon to Theoredcal Linguisdcs")
"... The Indian grammatical tradition is not only independent
of the Greco-Roman but also earlier, more diverse in its man¬
ifestations and in some respects superior in its achievements.
Pänini (fourth century B.C.), acknowledged as the greatest of
the Indian grammarians, mentions a large number of prede¬
cessors, and it may be assumed that he is working in a tradi¬
tion which started some centuries before him. As for the di¬
versity and extent of Indian grammatical work: about twelve
different schools of grammatical theory have been recognized
in the Indian tradition (most, if not all, to some degree de¬
pendent on Pänini), and there are about a thousand separate
grammatical works preserved ..."
ibid., p. 20:
"There are two respects in which Indian linguistic work may
be held to be superior to Western traditional grammar: first
in phonetics, and second in the study of the internal structure
of words. Indian grammadcal studies seem to have had their
origin in the necessity of preserving intact, not only the text,
but also the pronunciation of the Vedic hymns, the precise
and accurate recitation of which is held to be essential to their
efficacy in Hindu ritual. The Indian classification of speech
sounds was more detailed, more accurate and more soundly
based upon observation and experiment than anything a-
chieved in Europe (or elsewhere as far as we know) before
the late nineteenth century, when the science of phonedcs in
Europe was in fact strongly infiuenced by the discovery and
translation of the Indian linguistic treatises by Western
scholars. In their analysis of words the Indian grammarians
went well beyond what might be thought necessary for the
original purpose of preserving the language of the sacred
texts. And Pänini's grammar is not in fact specifically devoted
to the language of the Vedic hymns, but to the language of
his own day.
Pänini's grammar of Sanskrit has frequently been described,
from the point of view of its exhaustiveness (within the limits
which it sets itself: i.e. mainly with regard to the structure of
words), its internal consistency and its economy of statement,
as far superior to any grammar of any language yet written.
The main part of the grammar, which is a highly technical
work and can be interpreted only with the aid of the com¬
mentaries of his successors, consists of about 4,000 rules
(some of them extremely short) and lists of basic forms
('roots'), to which reference is made in the rules. The rules
are ordered in sequence in such a way that the scope of a
particular rule is defined or restricted by the preceding rules.
Further economy is achieved by the use of abbreviations and
symbols. There are many aspects of nineteenth-century lin¬
guistics which are clearly derived from the practice or theory
of the Indian grammarians. But the influence of Pänini's prin¬
ciples (exhaustiveness, consistency and economy) is to be
seen even more clearly in some of the most recent works in
linguistics."
VON DER Gabelentz, 1969, 22 sq:
"... Die Vorgeschichte der indischen Grammatik ist noch
lange nicht vollkommen aufgehellt, vielleicht zum Theile auf
ewig verdunkelt auch Pänini's Wunderwerk. Es ist dies die
einzige wahrhaft vollständige Grammatik, die eine Sprache
aufzuweisen hat, eine der reichsten Sprachen zudem; und
sehen wir von den Elementarbüchern ab, so dürfte sie zu
gleicher Zeit die kürzeste aller Grammatiken sein; denn man
hat ausgerechnet, dass sie in fortlaufendem gewöhnlichem
Drucke, in lateinische Buchstaben transscribirt, kaum
hundert Octavseiten füllen würde. Sie fasst ihren Stoff in etwa
viertausend kurzen Regeln zusammen, die in acht Haupt¬
theile geordnet sind. Die Reihenfolge und Vertheilung der
Lehrsätze ist aber nicht organisch in unserem Sinne, das
Zusammengehörige, z. B. verschiedene Formen desselben
Wortes, muss man oft an den verschiedensten Stellen zusam-
mensuchen, und es kommt vor, dass eine einzige Form durch
eine lange Reihe von Regeln und Ausnahmen hindurch
Spiessruthen laufen muss, ehe sie endlich für den Lernenden
feststeht. Was diesem dabei zugemuthet wird, will ich wenig¬
stens annähernd an einem Beispiele aus der deutschen Gram¬
matik veranschaulichen. Bei §80 bildet er sich ein, es müsse
nach der Analogie von flehte, wehte auch heissen: gehte,
stehte, sehte; bei § 140 nach stand auch gand, bis er endlich
in §200 die Form ging lernt. Das sind vier Stadien, man hat
aber bei Pänini in einzelnen Fällen mehr als doppelt soviele
gezählt. Sein Buch kann nur der gebrauchen, der in jedem
Augenblicke alle Lehrsätze im Geiste gegenwärtig hat; kein
Wunder, dass es allein an die sechs Jahre fleissigsten Lernens
erfordern soll. Ich weiss nicht, ob man in der gleichen Zeit
bei gleichem Fleisse mit unseren Hülfsmitteln auch nur im
Latein die gleiche Vollkommenheit erreichen würde, wie der
Brahmane unter Päninis Leitung im Sanskrit."
Class (3) The works to be discussed in this group exemplify what
could and should have been referred to en lieu the general impor¬
tance of IIG for any study of linguistics and, at the same time,
how paradigmatic reference could be made.
In fact, the number of exceptions to be mentioned here is very
small: class (3) consists actually of two authors only, of which the
former, R. H. Robins "General Linguisdcs. An introductory Sur¬
vey" 1964 is something like a semi-excepdon; the only real excep¬
tion being Leonard Bloomfield, which shows once again the
unique importance of Bloomfield's contribution to the field'.
It is not surprising to see that the only excepdons are books
written by authors who are also historians of linguisdcs. R.H.
Robins' book A Short History of Linguistics 1979, (pp. 135-149),
is, in my view, one of the most concise and profound references
to IIG in a linguistic book today. It is the only modern coverage
that fulfils the requirements of an adequate descripdon of IIG.
The only real exception, Leonard Bloomfield, can, of course,
be considered a major historian of linguistics as well. Bloomfield
' As a noted scholar in Indian Linguistics of yet another genre of general
linguistics and linguists, Paul Kiparsky should be mentioned here. He is probably the greatest exception of living general and historical linguists proper, as far as work in and knowledge of IIG are concerned.
is an exception in more than one way: Not only has he written
explicitly about, and actually given an in-depth analysis of IIG,
but he also analyzed in detail the reasons why the situation in the
field of linguistics concerning the reception of IIG is the way it
is. If Päriini's grammar, in Bloomfield's words, is "one of the
greatest monuments of human intelligence", it is fair to say that
his own account of IIG in his famous review of Liebich 1914 is
itself one of the most intelligent accounts of IIG supplied by a
Western general linguist. Since the content of Bloomfield 1933
can be assumed to be well-known with linguists, I would like to
refer to Bloomfield 1929 only'°.
First Robins' general description of Indic linguistics should be
quoted:
Robins 1964, 377:
"... The Indian tradition of linguistic scholarship, devoted to
the Sanskrit language, was of a very high order, and its in¬
fiuence on Western linguistics was profound and is by no
means over. Unlike the Greek and Latin grammarians, and
their mediaeval successors, Indian linguists exhibited great
interest and masterly competence in the phonetic analysis
and description of their speech; and the level of the phonetic
and phonological linguisdc analysis in the last hundred years
or so owes a great deal to their work.
Pänini is the best known of the Indian linguists. His date is
uncertain, but around 600 B.C. or later, has been suggested
in the light of the evidence available. His Sanskrit grammar
has been described by Bloomfield as 'one of the greatest
monuments of Human intelligence'. Unfortunately, its very
Having said that historians of linguistics are the only exceptions to the rule, it is fair to say that there are other historians that take IIG into consideration in a different genre of linguistic literature not considered in this investigation, i.e. in histories of linguistics proper. Von der Gabelentz' Geschichte der Sprachwissen¬
schaft and Arens' Sprachwissenschaft and others should be mentioned here. This very fact confirms the view ofthe overall attitude of Western linguists towards IG in general and IIG in particular, however: IIG is not treated in grammatical analysis, Pänini's explanations of phonetics are not treated in introductions to phonetics, his treatments of word formation are not included in modern Western
books on word formation. Rather, they are treated in books on the history of
linguistics as some kind of non-mainstream, "exotic" testimony that historians of the field should be interested in like in other unusual matters. I think it is time to break with this tradition.
362 Hannes Kniffka
perfection of method renders it extremely obscure to the read¬
er even with a knowledge of Sanskrit, and its elucidation to
the general linguist as a standard model of description,
despite numerous commentaries and translations, remains to
be done. Its main characterisdc is the startling economy with
which the details of Sanskrit morphology are expressed in
statements of rules, often of great brevity in which no
avoidable repeddon of a previous statement is made, at any
subsequent point, though this compression has always been
recognized as a source of difficulty to the student. Pänini's
work clearly constitutes a combination of much previous
scholarship, and it was afterwards the subject of extensive
commentaries. Its origin lay in the need felt to understand
and preserve intact the language of the Vedic scriptures, but
the world of linguisdcs is fortunate, that the interest of this
lion of Indian scholars went far beyond his immediate re¬
quirements. The work of the Indian linguistic scholars is dis¬
tinguished historically by two features, the excellence of their
phonetic description of Sanskrit, both as regards accuracy
and the systematic terms in which they stated it, and their
ability to carry formal analysis below the word in terms cor¬
responding to the modern morpheme. Greco-Roman morpho¬
logical analysis was set out in terms of paradigms of whole
words grouped together by similarities of morphological com¬
position, but the actual concept of the morpheme as a formal
component of such words was never clearly explicated by
scholars in Western antiquity ... Pänini is also to be credited
with the device of 'zero' in linguisdc description, by which
part of an apparendy irregular set of morphological forms
can, by postposidng an analydc endty without actual ex¬
ponents as an element of their structure, be brought into line
with the regular forms.
This procedure has already been illustrated above ..."
In his History of Linguistics (Robins 1979, 146-7), which is one
of the most substantial descriptions of IIG in modern linguistic
literature, H.P. Robins has also pointed out the fact that Bloom¬
field gave an analysis of the method and of how a description of
English in Päninean style would look like. Also, that Bloom¬
field's Menomeni-morphophonemics can be regarded as
Päninean in method and inspiradon. This certainly is a fact to be
dealt with in general linguistics courses and books rather than in
studies of indigenous grammars.
In his review of Bruno Liebich's book Konkordanz Pänini-^an-
dra (Breslau 1928, in: Language 5, 267-276), Bloomfield gave
(and, very likely, created) the set of topoi that were to be repeated
in introducdons to linguistics for decades, but went far beyond
this and gave some kind of a concise account of an IG. He states
the general importance of IIG (p. 268):
"... The descriptive grammar of Sanskrit, which Pänini
brought to its highest perfection, is one of the greatest monu¬
ments of Human intelligence, and, (what concerns us more)
an indispensable model for the description of
languages [emphasis mine]. The only achievement in our
field which can take rank with it, is the historical linguisdcs
of the nineteenth century, and this, indeed, owed its origin
largely to Europe's acquaintance with Indian grammar.
Indian grammar has been undervalued and neglected by
many linguists, especially in America. In part, this neglect is
due to a misconception of its historical place. European
scholars naturally supposed that Sanskrit grammar bore the
same relation to Sanskrit literature as Latin grammar bears to
Roman literature ..."
It needs no further explanation that Bloomfield's dictum applies
to European linguists as much as to linguists in America (which
is even more surprising facing the reladvely larger involvement in
Indic studies found in academia in countries like Germany).
As Bloomfield states, the fact that
"... The Europeans saw in classical texts a primary docu¬
ment, in the grammar a secondary one and unreliable at that
n
is the first reason for the neglect of IIG in western linguistics. He
probably was the first Western non-indologist proper who stated
clearly that Pänini's grammar was a descriptive grammar of
"... a colloquial speech, a conservative upper-class language,
to be sure, but a language nadve to him and used in everyday
life by the Brahmans in his part of North-Western India ..."
In more general terms, and oversimplified, one could say that the
strength in developing a historical comparative method and ana-
lysing the relationship among Indo-European languages led, at
the same time, to a neglect in the study of the descriptive status
of IIG.
The second cause of the neglect of IIG, according to Bloomfield,
is
"... a sense of superiority: because the Indians had not dis¬
covered the history of language, their work was supposed to
be negligible. One forgot that the comparative grammar of the
Indo-European languages got its start only when the
Päninean analysis of an Indo-European language became
known in Europe ..."
Bloomfield goes on to state some basic linguistic methodological
principles (ibid.) :
"... Historical linguistics depends on a comparison of two or
more languages or stages of the same language. Any gap in
our knowledge of the languages or stages that are to be com¬
pared, sets an absolute limitation upon our results ..."
"... In the main, comparative and historical Indo-European
grammar gathered its descriptive data as it went along. If one
had a complete and scientifically organized descriptive gram¬
mar, such as we have for classical Sanskrit, for a represen¬
tative stage of every Indo-European language (say, of Pla¬
tonic Greek, Plautinic Latin, Alfredian English, etc.)
Indo-European comparadve grammar would have developed
with a speed and accuracy beyond our conception."
The third factor leading to the neglect of IIG in Western linguis¬
tics, the form of Pänini's grammar that required a commentary
for an adequate understanding, is a topos repeated verbatim in
introducdons to linguisdcs. Bloomfield seems the first linguist in
the West, apart from indologists proper, who gave a short ope¬
rational description of the way Päninean rules (sutras) look and
work (op. cit. p. 271, cf. below).
Most revealing, indeed, is the application of the Päninean system
of "ordered rules" to English (p.272):
"... For instance, an English grammar of the same kind might
contain the following rules about nouns: (1) the plural adds
[-z]; (2) after unvoiced sounds [-s]; (3) after sibilants and
affricates [-iz] ; and it then would be the order of these rules
which told us which one to apply in any given case, the later
rule 3 outweighing rules 1 and 2. For certain irregular noun-
plurals, we should have the rule (4) calf etc. (the list would
appear in the Ganapätha, i.e. the list of words): 'Voice the
final spirants.' Here it might be the most specific nature of
this rule which told us that it was to be applied before we
made the choice between rules 1 and 2, or it might be the fact
that this rule dealt with a sound farther from the end of the
finished word, calves."
The final verdict of Bloomfield's concerning IIG should in fact
be taken as an incentive to study Pänini's grammar by every stu¬
dent of linguistics (ibid. pp. 273-4):
"... The extreme conciseness of Pänini and his imitators im¬
presses the modern reader in several ways: in part it nearly
obscures the content, in part it rests on the useful and elegant
notation, and in part it inheres in the scientific treatment,
and, once appreciated, will impose itself upon every treatise
whose aim is description of a set of linguistic habits. This
scientific condensation, which places every feature into its
proper setting, is one of the virtues which make Indian gram¬
mar a model for us. The other is completeness. Pänini gives
the formation of every inflected, compounded, or derived
word, with an exact statement of the sound-variations (inclu¬
ding accent), and of the meaning.
Pänini's grammar is one of the greatest monuments of man's
intelligence ..."
3. Outline of a Culture-Contrastive Study of Indigenous
Grammar
What can be done to change the situation described in order to
improve the study and knowledge of IG with Western students of
linguistics, presupposing consent exists amongst linguistic col¬
leagues that such an increase in knowledge is both valuable and
necessary?
There is, of course, no simple remedy. As a general prere¬
quisite, an attitude-adjustment seems necessary: Western linguists
should come to appreciate IGs other than "current theory" (of
Western descent). It should be made clear that it is worthwhile to
follow up grammatical reflection and discussion in any IG in an
in-depth and encompassing fashion within grammatical theory
proper, rather than restricting the discussion of some contents of
an IG to the history-of-linguistics branch, and confining oneself
to Western schools only.
The two basic dimensions of the study of IG that one would
have to take into consideration are, from my point of view:
- (1) A holistic description of each grammatical theory of an IG
in its own right, both systematically and historically, is to be
given;
- (2) it is necessary to develop a comparative cross-cultural grid
that allows to compare grammatical categories and functions in
adequate depth and precision within the system as a whole
rather than creating translation equivalents of a superficial na¬
ture only.
The two works quoted as paradigmatic examples of the study of
IG (Robins ^1979, and Bloomfield 1929) can both serve as ex¬
amples to what extent and how one should refer to an IG like
IIG. They both make it clear that it is necessary and possible to
show what a great achievement Pänini's grammar is, at least in a
simplified and abbreviated form, by giving actual examples. An
example of the original text reveals much more information about
IIG, supported by the necessary explanadons, than any theoreti¬
cal "hearsay" report of facts and any modern linguist's commen¬
tary could do.
To verify this, however fragmentarily, just one example should
be quoted how Bloomfield 1929 and Robins ^1979 explain the
so-called shivasütras (see below):
Bloomfield 1929, 271:
"Abbreviations are formed by writing the first member of any
series with a silent letter which is placed arbitrarily at the end
of the series. For instance, as a kind of preface to the gram¬
mar, the alphabet is arranged (in so-called shivasütra) in a
carefully planned order, with silent letters scattered through
at certain points. By naming a single letter and one of the
subsequent silent letters, Pänini forms an abbreviadon for all
the letters (sounds) that intervene, including the letter named.
This enables Pänini to say, for example, jhal for 'stop, sibi¬
lant, or h'. Silent letters and short arbitrary names for certain
features - the meaning of all these is, of course, explained in
special rules - further shorten the discussion ... This short¬
hand notation gives Hindu grammatical discussion a sweep
and power which makes our terminology seem halting in
comparison."
Robins ^1979, p. 147 explains the shivasütras as follows:
"Pänini's rules are set out in such a way that the repetition of
a rule in relation to a subsequent rule in word formation is
rendered unnecessary. Economy is further served by a num¬
ber of special devices; the distinctive sound units listed by
Pänini are arranged in a special order, bringing together those
sounds jointly involved in the statement of certain rules.
These sequences are further divided by the interposition of
sound units used demarcatively, so that a succession of
sounds can be abbreviated to the first sound and the marker
following the last. Thus from the sequence a i u («), a i u
can be indicated by an, and from a i u (n) r I e o (h) ai au
(c), ac can be used to mean 'all vowels' (r and / stand for
vocalic r and /, respectively). This type of abbreviation is
extended to grammatical elements; sup refers to all nominal
case endings and tin to all verbal personal endings."
To give a brief illustration of just one Päninean sütra:
Sütra no. 6,1,77 iko yan aci :
Given the number and arrangement of 14 shivasütras^^, it is pos¬
sible to state the number of sounds (or other phenomena) the rule
should be applied to, by taking the first sound of one particular
shivasütra and combining it with the last vowelless consonant of
the particular group in question. For example,
an would refer to the 3 vowels a i u;
ac would refer to al 1 vowels
Aa/would refer to al 1 consonants
al (starting from the a in shivasütra 1 up to the / in hai (shivasütra
14) would refer to all sounds.
Sütra no. 6,1,77 iko yan aci can, oversimplified, be explained as
follows:
" (1) a i u n (2) r 1 k (3) e o n (4) ai au c (5) hayavarat (6) I Ian
(7) üamanananam (8) jha bha fi (9) ghadhadhas (10) jabagadadas
(11) kha pha cha cha tha tha catatav (12) kapay (13) sasasar (14) hai.
The form iko is to be taken as an ablative case ending added to
ik (referring to the vowels /, u, r, J), expressing the notion 'oc¬
curring after ik\
yan refers to and summarizes what follows after the ya in
shivasütra 5 up to the n in shivasütra no. 6, i.e. the semi-vowels y
V r I.
The third constituent of the rule aci consists of a locative ending
-/ added to ac- (all sounds starting from a in sütra 1 through the
c in sütra 4, i.e. all vowels), the locative expressing the notion
'(occurring) before a vowel'. Pänini's sütra 6,1,77 reads (in the
translation of Böhtlingk 1877): "For the vowels /, u, r or/, short
or long, in front of a vowel, y, v, r, k and / are substituted
accordingly." Or in even more simplified terms: A vowel is
changed into the corresponding semi-vowel when a vowel, not
itself, follows it. The details of the syntactic and semantic status
of Pänini's sütras, the arrangement as a whole etc., cannot be
dealt with here any further. It should be noted that pedagogical
versions of the grammar, which was difficult to understand for
indigenous students also'^ frequently used a different arrange¬
ment of the rules; the rule just quoted, for instance, is the first
rule in the Laghusiddhäntakaumudi of Varadaräja.
It should be repeated here what has been stated at the begin¬
ning: a reference of this type in an introduction to linguistics is,
of course, not meant as a substitute for a detailed study of IIG by
experts. Rather, it is meant to be simplified "common-grounds"
that students of general linguistics should have as part of their
standard repertoire when studying grammar. I am convinced that
such a study of IG, for which Bloomfield, Robins, and others
have shown the way, is revealing and highly rewarding.
A need for a simplification and adaptation of classical IIG texts, like Pänini's Astädhyäyi, Patafijali's Mähäbhäsya etc. was felt in India for Indian students of IIG also. The Kaumudi ("moonshine") versions of "pedagogically" adapted de¬
scriptive grammars (rather than pedagogical grammars proper) owe their existence to this fact. The best known are Bhattoji DTksita's Siddhänta Kaumudi of which Varadaräja's Laghu Siddhdntu Kaumudi ("Easy way to achieve ...") is yet another simplified version. In practical terms, the simplification undertaken means, for example, systematizing rules according to topic, recording of rules, supplying
examples and supplying extensive commentary quotations and additional com¬
ments on the explanations of the commentaries.
This brief example must do to illustrate what can be done in
improving the knowledge of an IG.
The need to change this situation and some actual deficits in
teaching linguistics in Third World countries, have led to start a
project "Indigenous Grammar in Culture-Contrastive Perspec¬
tive", run at the Department of General and Applied Linguistics
of Bonn University.
The project tries to take all the points of the discussion outlined
above into consideration. It also assumes that there is a modern
dimension to the study of IG: linguistics and philology as dealt
with in academic institutions in India, Arab countries, etc.
nowadays. It draws heavily on the indigenous tradition. More¬
over, it seems that the teaching of linguistics there and the prac-
dcal needs of foreign language instrucdon could greatly benefit
from a more systematic reference to IG. In the following a brief
outline of the project is given: The issues discussed above are an
intrinsic part of it rather than a side-product, which cannot be
explained here any further. The aim of the project can be roughly
described by four points:
- (1) Firstly, it is attempted to cope with the situation that very
little indeed can be found, e.g. of Tibetan and Chinese IG in
Western linguisdc literature. Even philologists specialized in
these pardcular areas, frequently "detour" around IG, some¬
times because linguisdcs, in pardcular modern descripdve lin¬
guistics, is not their field. With the help of these specialists, we
are trying to gather information on the general status of a par¬
dcular IG, its tradition(s), and its main parts.
- (2) Secondly, we want to put forth "Cross-Cultural Compara¬
tive General Linguistics", which, different from comparative
linguistics, tries to take into account grammatical theories in
various cultures, knowledge systems, opinions concerning lan¬
guage and its use and other "metagrammatical" information
systematically. The object of this type of "comparative general
linguistics" could be called a search for "grammaticographic
universalia" and "unicalia", elementary parallels, etc. Ques¬
tions like the following are being pursued:
What is the status of the native speaker in terms of his own
perception of himself as an "authority" for IG?
Is there just one, or are there various competing grammatical
"schools" in a particular culture?
What is their relationship?
Which "canonical parts" does the IG of a particular culture
contain?
Is the grammar normative, or descriptive, or a mixture of the
two?
Is there anything like a historical dimension to the study of
language in the grammar in question?
Is the grammar dealing with one language only or is it dealing
with other languages as well?
Is the grammatical meta-language the same as the object-lan¬
guage of the grammar?
Which modern reflexes are there, and what is their relevance
for the teaching and studying of linguistics in an indigenous
environment today?
How and to what extent does the knowledge of indigenous
grammatical tradition influence the attitude of modern "in¬
digenous linguists" in a culture, the study of Western foreign
languages, etc.?
- (3) Thirdly, there is a philological historical dimension proper.
The specific differences and structural similarities that exist be¬
tween different IGs are to be drawn up, including the historical
relationships that existed and still exist. The fact that the Arabs
took over much in phonetics from the Indians, that the Syrians
adapted Greek grammar, the Tibetans Sanskrit grammar, will
be dealt with. Philological historical perspectives cannot be left
out in a culture-contrastive analysis of IG.
In this third domain of the project, the grammatical system of a
particular language in question is being described, as is necessary
in order to understand the IG. Altogether, this is probably the
most difficult chapter, in which, by way of simplification and
"popularizadon" of data that are mainly reserved to the specialist
with a philological background in the field, are discussed.
- (4) Fourthly, the project tries to invesdgate systematically, to
describe and explain adequately modern refiexes of a particular
"classical" IG in the particular indigenous environment, for
instance, the refiexes of IIG in the linguistic studies in India
today, the remnants of classical Arabic IG in the teaching and
studying of linguistics and languages in Arab countries, etc.
It is hypothesized that more detailed understanding of the autoch¬
thonous traditions that IG supplies are of theoretical and practical
relevance to the "indigenous" student. By theoretical is meant that
knowledge of the grammatical tradition of one's own culture is
valuable for everybody, in particular for people working in fields
of the Humanities, most of all for people dealing with languages.
By practical relevance, reference is made to ingredients of obser¬
vations that result from personal history: While teaching linguis¬
tics and foreign languages in Third World countries (mainly Arab
countries and China), it manifested itself time and again that
there were various "undertows" of indigenous grammatical tradi¬
tion, for example in the understanding of the grammar of the local
language, in the way people acted in linguistics/foreign language
classes, and in the overall learning behaviour. Many forms can be
explained by more or less overt features and undertows of local
traditions of IG. In Arab countries, for example, this pertains to
by-heart-learning practices applied in Koran Schools, to the de¬
scription (including its difficulties) of grammatical terminology,
etc. The attitude teachers and learners of a language have con¬
cerning first and second language acquisition, can be traced back
to IG traditions frequendy, including, e.g., the role of wridng
systems in the learning of foreign languages, memorizing of par¬
adigms, as well as the general function of language in relation to
religion and culture, questions of orthography, orthoepy, etc.
It goes without saying that full understanding of the "current
theory" of IG systems is only possible through a thorough knowl¬
edge of the linguistic and cultural background. This certainly is
of critical importance to foreign language teachers, linguists and
people involved in the language business. The project tries to
make sure that classical and modern aspects of IG are taken into
consideration, and, by the same token, that not only Westerners,
but also "indigenous" scholars will be involved.
A quesdonnaire concerning data of IG was sent out to special¬
ists in IG in various cultures. In addition, a questionnaire was
sent to Western specialists in a particular IG. A sample is given
below (in the original wording) for illustration:
Questionnaire on the Culture-Contrastive Study of Indigenous
Grammars:
1. What is the affilitatory status of "Indigenous Grammar"
(IG) in your culture? Is it "autochthonous", or are there
"predecessors" in other cultures (and/or in other lan¬
guages)?
2. Where is the system of IG located in the system of sciences,
philosophical systems, etc., in the scholarly tradition? To
which system does grammar as a science belong?
3. Which (object) language is dealt with in your IG and in
which (meta-)language is the description given?
4. Is your IG a prescriptive or a descriptive grammar, or none
of the two? Please explain where you would put it on a
continuum extending between these two poles. Does your
IG make reference to "standard" vs. "non-standard" varie¬
ties of the language described, (e.g. H- vs. L-variety) or a
similar dichotomy?
5. Is there a systematic account of language varieties in your
IG and is variation of language (according to social class,
profession, age, etc.) noted as such?
6. What is the acceptance of and tolerance towards varieties
other than the standard "classical" variety of the language
described in your IG, like e.g. varieties of spoken Arabic
vs. Qur'änic Arabic?
7. Does your IG refer to diachronic stages and historical de¬
velopment of language as an object of grammatical descrip¬
tion? Is language "allowed to change" according to or con¬
trary to the system in your IG?
8. Does your IG make statements about language acquisition
of first or second language? Are there statements about the
study of language grammar - like the saying in ancient
India "grammar is learned in twelve years"?
9. Is there a systematic distincdon between spoken language
and writing in your IG?
10. Does your IG (a) know of and (b) recognise other (non-in¬
digenous) grammars of the language in question?
11. Would you call the IG of your culture "ethnocentric" or
"non-ethnocentric" ?
12. Does your IG account for controversies between different
schools of IG in your culture? Is a "tradition of IGs" stated?
13. Does your IG make use of a term equivalent to "grammad¬
cal rule"? How is this term defined?
14. Does your IG have an equivalent for the term "norm" and
how is it defined?
15. Which are the canonical parts/levels of grammatical de¬
scription in your IG? Are there equivalents to the four lev¬
els phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics and how
are they defined each? Which is the central or core part of
your IG?
16. What "unicalia" (including so-called incomparable and un¬
translatable features) does your IG have? Please state ex¬
amples (terms, concepts, ideas, etc.).
17. What "universalia" and common features with other IG(s)
does your IG contain? Give some examples concerning
concepts, terms, perspectives, etc.
18. What consequences and effects has the "classical system"
of IG in your culture had for the tradition and today's prac¬
tice in academic and secondary school "real life"? What
reference is being made to IG in first language instruction
in primary, secondary and tertiary levels of teaching?
19. Which elements of classical IG and traditions of it are
known to the average educated native speaker (non-special¬
ist in IG) in your culture? Please give some examples con¬
cerning grammatici concepts, terms, perspectives, etc.
A large corpus of answers is being analysed at present. Also, a
series of lectures on this topic was held at Bonn University in
1990/01, which is to be renewed. Some additional discussions
have been presented to a larger audience at a workshop "IG in
Culture-Contrastive Perspective" at the 1993 SLE-Conference in
Krakau.
We believe that this is a very preliminary yet valid attempt to
account for the rich information supplied by the study of In¬
digenous Grammars and we are convinced that this attempt is
worth doing and of relevance for general linguistics and philologi¬
cal study beyond its domain proper.
The data available at present suggest beyond doubt that a sys¬
tematic culture-contrastive analysis of "indigenous" grammatical
thought cannot be dealt with adequately in a "history of linguis¬
tics" perspective only, but contains many insights worth being
dealt with in "current theory" of grammar anywhere.
4. Conclusions
What follows from the discussion in more practical terms for
linguists interested in the comparative and culture-contrastive
analysis of IG and the role it should play in general linguistics?
The following postulates concerning the study of IG in modern
Hnguistics could, in my opinion, be agreed upon, disregarding
differences in goals and interests, theoretical and methodological
orientation that exist between different "schools" and which may,
in fact, entail considerable variation in the choice of what of a
particular IG is considered of special interest:
(1) The comparative cross-cultural study of ancient and mod¬
ern IGs is a field of study worth being explored in depth by
every general linguist.
(2) An adequate account of IG will need a broader perspec¬
tive of research, including ingredients of the cultural back¬
ground.
(3) The "original" of any Indigenous Grammar should be the
prime object of linguistic study. It should be read in the
language it is written in. In many instances this means that
the "indigenous language" has to be studied for years. Only
thereafter can one resort to second and third hand references
and references of references and hearsay evidence if deemed
necessary.
(4) Original examples and quotations should be given as evi¬
dence from the original Indigenous Grammar whenever pos¬
sible rather than secondary "interpretadons" and secondary
remarks from one's own ethnocentric (grammarian's) per¬
spective.
(5) Translations of single words should not be dealt with in
an atomistic and eclectic way. In using atomistic notions one
is programmed to make severe mistakes. Rather, whole texts
and text passages should be translated that cover the total
system of a theory or, at least, part of it.
By dealing with single nodons, like, e.g., word forma¬
tion, derivation, and even grammar, which seem to
be unproblematic in talking about Indic Indigenous Gram¬
mar, misconceptions are about to be created, which obscure
more than they reveal.
The whole tradition of Sanskrit grammatical terms, the posi¬
tion of ancient Indic Indigenous Grammar as (one) part of
the Veda, a vedanga ("limb" of the Veda), the status of a
siitra, a grammadcal rule in Pänini, and the operadonal sta¬
tus of the grammar as a whole are to be taken into account.
(6) All this implies, in real linguistic life, a necessity to make
the study of IG like IIG more attractive by making it more
