Jaina Philosophy of Language

SR No.: 001601
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 2006
Total Pages: 168
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, & Language
File Size: 10 MB

Page 132

(106) : Jaina Philosophy of Language
a word may change with reference to different persons also. Further, with reference to one terminology also the meaning conveyed by the speaker and the meaning comprehended by the listener may also vary. In many a contexts, we take the others statements otherwise thus the meaning not only depends upon capability of the words,but it is dependent on the the capability of the listener also. In comprehending the meaning, first a relation is built between the word and its meaning. When we teach language to a child, we pronounce a word and at the same time show the thing also for which the word stands. Gradually, the child builds a relation between the two and thus whenever he listens or reads the word, he comprehends its object or meaning. We thus find that the comprehension of meaning of a word does not depend upon only the capability of the word but it is also relative to the previous impressions of the listener or the reader. It depends upon the past experience of the listener or the reader. That is why the words of the language that we have not learnt do not convey to us any meaning what so ever. The Jaina philosophers, therefore, refuse the Mīmāmsakas view that words have an inherent capability to express themselves. In many a cases the intention of the speaker is misunderstood by the listener. We will have to accept therefore, that in spite of the expressive-expressed relation between the word and its meaning the meaning is also related to the listener's ability. Otherwise, it was not possible that the two individuals would have taken the same terminology in different senses.
Moreover, the capability of a word is also limited to express its object. The reason for this limitation is obvious. There are more varieties and shades of feelings than the words can express. The number of words and the capabilities of words both are limited in comparison of the objects that they denote.2 Take for example, the word, 'sweet'. There are so many things called as sweet viz. sugarcane, mango, sweets, some dryfruits etc. and we call to all of them with one word 'sweet' but we very well know that the sweetness of all these things is not the same. In the statements like 'mango is sweet' and 'watermelon is sweet', the word, 'sweet' does not indicate the same experience. Compared to the sound and the body signals of animals, there is, of course, much more expressibility of feelings and objects in human word symbols, but they two have their own