Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, Ka:rmik Linguistics and Literary Association, Hyderabad

INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT: A KA:RMATIC ANALYSIS OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Abstract Context is understood in different ways by different linguists. First, as text, it was the the wording that came before and after whatever was under attention (Halliday 1991: 3); later on, in the 19c, it was extended to concrete and abstract things: the context of the building; the moral context of the day; and then further, in modern linguistics, to the nonverbal environment in which language was used. Consequently, the word co-text has been coined to refer explicitly to the verbal environment. At that time, Malinowski (1923, 35) introduced two distinguishing terms context of situation and context of culture. What this means is that language considered as a system its lexical items and grammatical categories is to be related to its context of culture; while instances of language in use specific texts and their component parts are to be related to their context of situation. Both these contexts are of course outside of language itself (Halliday 1991: 3). In discourse analysis, it is understood as knowledge, situation, and text in different approaches. According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory (KLT) of which ka:rmatics is a branch, language is not only used as a resource for the construction of ka:rmik (via dispositional) reality but it is also created from it in a five-fold reality construction process of dispositional-socioculturalspiritualcognitive-contextual actional-actional realities. Here disposition rules supreme by accepting, modifying, neutralizing or negating the prevailing cultural norms according to the individuals variable choice; again, even a new variable may be invented that may not become a cultural norm but used only for some time. Furthermore, culture is not a homogeneous structure and hence norms cannot be the same across a culture as a whole. Consequently, cultural derivation of meaning is problematic at the individual level and indeterminate at the collective level. Therefore, it is proposed here that meaning should be derived at all the levels of cultural praxis including cross-cultural communication ka:rmatically in a ka:rmik context but not in a cultural context. I. Introduction In the traditional theories, language is considered a mental or social or cognitive system for communicating ideas or feelings but not an experiential (ka:rmik) system for coordinating the coordination of action for the fulfilment of desires and the experience of the results of action. Such a view, in formal linguistics, has led to the development of semantics in which meaning is defined purely as a property of expressions in a given language in abstraction from particular situations, speakers or hearers (Leech 1983: 6) whereas, in functional linguistics, meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to the speaker or user of the language (ibid.). Leech (ibid.) redefined pragmatics for the purposes of linguistics, as the study of meaning in relation to speech situations (ibid.).

However, in our day-to-day activities, we use language to observe, interpret, identify, represent, initiate, communicate, coordinate, and experience phenomenal and noumenal action in its variety-range-depth for the fulfilment of our complex desires and the experience of the results of action. This experience is totally achieved by making dispositional choices of what language (words, sentences, stretches of discourse in a context) to use, and how (when, where, manner) to use it; and why at all use it as it is used. At the same time, our comprehension of what we hear is also controlled by our traits, phenomenal knowledge of the world, and va:sana:s (internalized habits) constituting our svabha:vam (disposition). As a result, we understand, misunderstand, and dont understand according to our dispositional reaction to what-how-why something is said in, out of, and beyond a context. When we look at language from that perspective, language becomes a means for the end of experience of pleasure and pain through the fulfilment/non-fulfilment of desires generated-specified-directed-materialized by our disposition. What it means is that language is an experiential system for coordinating the coordination of activity for living (which is the experience of pleasure and pain by the ji:va (human being)). Consequently, we derive meaning through disposition for experiencing pleasure/pain in our life. To elaborate further semantics as sentence meaning becomes pragmatics as sentencein-context meaning which becomes ka:rmatics as sentence experiencein-context meaning where the experience is dispositionally created and so, being individualistic, may differ/concur across individuals in a culture: the study of meaning in ka:rmatics, then, is defined as meaning this and that to be so and so in such and such manner derived from individual ka:rmik experience (which is obtained as a result of a dispositional reaction to the contextual action) or simply as (ka:rmik) experiential meaning. As dispositionally derived experiential meaning, it contrasts with culturally derived meaning and sentential meaning which are not so. As an extension, when two cultures intersect, meaning may be initially derived cross-culturally but finally it is derived cross-dispositionally (i.e., cross-ka:rmikally). In this paper, an attempt has been made to motivate cross-cultural communication in a ka:rmatic framework. To do so, let us make a brief literature review of how meaning is constructed in the important formal, functional, and cognitive schools of discourse analysis. II. Literature Review Schiffrin (1994: 365) discusses four well-known approaches in the functional linguistic paradigm (Speech Act Theory, Interactional Sociolinguistics, Ethnography of Communication, and Pragmatics) and two approaches in the formal linguistic paradigm (Conversational Analysis and Variation Analysis). According to her, all the four functional linguistic approaches view context as knowledge in which knowledge of situation is a key part but variation analysis views situation and text as part of context. On the other hand, conversational analysis, according to her, views text as a means of displaying situationand creating knowledge that includes knowledge of situation. From this information,

we can identify three views about context from discourse analysis: 1. Context as Knowledge; 2. Context as Situation; and 3. Context as Text and finally a mixed view of Context as 4. Situation and Knowledge / Situation and Text. Let us briefly explain these key concepts to prepare the ground for ka:rmatics. 2. 1. Context as Knowledge Knowledge is a broad term but it is understood to mean what speakers and hearers can be assumed to know (e.g. about social institutions, about others wants and needs, about the nature of human rationality) and how that knowledge guides the use of language and the interpretation of utterances. (Sciffrin 1994: 365). The first type of knowledge deals with the society; the second with the individuals social being; and the third with basic psychology. In both speech act theory and pragmatics, there is an emphasis on mutual knowledge of the constitutive rules of speech act theory. However, there is no explicit inclusion of the knowledge of disposition of the language user which is critical to choice in discourse. 2. 2. Context as Situation According to the Random House Dictionary (2013), context is defined as the totality of extralinguistic features having relevance to a communicative act (Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2013). In the Interactional Sociolinguistic Approach, situation involves both knowledge and situation: knowledge in the cognitive context is knowledge about social circumstances or expectations about social conduct... Interactional sociolinguistics also provides a way to analyze social context and to incorporate those contexts into procedures through which we infer meaning (Schiffrin 1994: 370). Goffmans (1974) sociological research on interactional order underlies social occasions, situations, and encounters which help to identify socially constituted moves that help create a sense of reality (sic related to contextualization cues and presuppositions and situated inference) in a particular interaction (i.e., a definition of the situation) (Schiffrin 1994: 370). In the case of ethnography of communication, context is both cognitive (what we know, embedded in our communicative competence) and social (the social and cultural components that combine to define communicative events) ... the Speaking Grid segments social context into different segments that not only define a particular social situation (event, and act) as a closed and bounded unit (Hymes 1972b: 56) but also provide a way to systematically differentiate from one another these situations (events and acts) that comprise the communicative repertoire of a given community (Schiffrin 1994: 371). 2. 3. Context as Text In variation analysis, context is also considered situation. However, unlike the interactional view which considers situation as open to definition and

redefinition since the sense of what is happening now is not supplied when an activity begins but is molded and remolded during different phases of activity, such that definitions of the situation emerge at the same time as the situation itself. Variationists don not consider a situation in toto to change once a definition of that situation is established (Schiffrin 1994: 374). In addition, variationists view text (as the linguistic content of utterances) also as context. Text provides for the what is said part of utterances whereas context combines with what is said to create an utterance. As a structurally motivated approach, variational analyss divides both situation and text into discrete and mutually exclusive factors that can be coded, counted and compared (Schiffrin 1994: 375). When a text is divided thus, a particular option with a particular grammatical aspect would be located as a context as information to be considered only in relation to something else that was the primary focus of our attention. Thus, text itself becomes context (ibid.) In conversational analysis, context is considered knowledge, situation and text. Since CA views an utterance as context-shaped and contextrenewing, it views text as context. As CA inherits the goal of accounting for the common-sense knowledge that members have for constructing talk (ibid. 376) from ethnomethodology, this knowledge is also considered by them as a part of the same setting which is orderable. Hence, we can say that this knowledge is also context. Again, knowledge and situation are mutually constitutive: participants understanding of their circumstances, and participants role in constructing those circumstances through actions are all intertwined (ibid.). Thus, there is a reflexive relationship between knowledge, situation, and text in context. 2. 4. Context as Culture In ethnography of communication, culture plays a crucial role for constructing context as situation. In SFL also there is the context of culture as discussed in the introduction. As we understand culture is patterned group behaviour. However, it is not a homogeneous phenomenon since all the members of a society need not conform to the norms evolved over a period of time. For example, it is a cultural norm to stay together with aged parents in India. However, it is not global in the Hindu culture now. Previously, greetings are uttered by namaskar/namaste which is also not global now in the same Hindu culture. That means that culture is not a fixed and static phenomenon; it is in a steady flux synchronically as well as diachronically. Another problem with culture is it cannot include idiosyncratic as well as innovative behaviour nor can it account for other cultural behaviour within a particular cultural behaviour, for example, a Hindu greeting an Englishman with Good morning! or a Muslim with salam aleikum for reducing social distance (solidarity or empathy). All the four approaches to context as knowledge, situation, text, and culture look at context from their own vantage point which is atomic but

not holistic. As Schiffrin (1994) discusses context extensively, any context involves not only knowledge of social institutions, about others wants and needs, about the nature of human rationality and how that knowledge guides the use of language and the interpretation of utterances but also of situation which consists of social situation (setting and scene), the participants (their social identities, such as gender, age, ethnicity), their key (formal or informal, careful or casual style of speaking), instrumentalities (channel, forms of speech drawn from community repertoire), norms of interaction and interpretation (within cultural belief system), and genre (textual categories). In addition, text provides for the what is said part of utterances whereas context combines with what is said to create an utterance. Therefore, we need a holistic view that combines all these components of knowledge, situation, and text into an understanding of what context is but also supplies other features such as, notably, disposition and experience which are missing in these approaches. In the next approach of ka:rmatics, disposition and experience play a crucial role in providing a holistic approach which includes an understanding of context as knowledge, situation, and text as well. 2. 5. Context as Experience According to Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory and Ka:rmatics, language is not only mental, social, and cognitive but also ka:rmik (dispositionally experiential) which includes all these three also. To explain more, language is not only used as a resource for the construction of ka:rmik reality (K. R.) at the higher level via dispositional reality (D. R) at the middle level and actional reality (A. R.) at the lower level but it is also created out of it. In fact, svabha:vam (disposition) generates-specifiesdirects-materializes all types of action including lingual action in their variety-range-depth. The construction of ka:rmik reality for karmaphalabho:gam (experience of the results of action; see below for more explanation) is achieved through the holorchical construction (see below for an explanation of the term holorchy) of five realities in a ka:rmik process of cause-effect experientiality. They are: [dispositionalsocioculturalspiritual-contextual actional (CA.)-actional)] realities (R s) through the fifth cognitive reality (C. R.). (1) Ka:rmik Reality: D.R. SCS. R. C. R. CA. R. A. R. [ a:nushangikally (a following member in a set inherits the properties of the previous member and has its own specific property, e.g., fire inherits the properties of sound and touch from air and has its own property of vision) gives rise to]. Dispositional Reality (D. R.) is the state of disposition. It is a complex of three constituents: 1. traits which produce likes and dislikes and from them choice, knowledge which is both phenomenal and noumenal that informs the being and impacts on traits, and va:sana:s which are internalized impressions of actions that become habits and impel the impressionalized actions without an antecedent and precedent cause at a particular point of existence in a human being. Socioculturalspiritual

(SCS) reality is the state of the societal, cultural worldview that a being ingrains from the society. It is absorbed by disposition to form SCS Dispositional Reality. Cognitive reality is the state of cognition through which SCS D. R, CA. R and A. R are cognized as SCS-CA-A-D. R. Contextual Actional Reality is the context in which action is produced. It comprises all the realities which come into play in the production of action. Broadly we identify three realities: actional; dispositional; and ka:rmik but we take into consideration SCS and Cognitive realities also when they are needed to explain specific cases where they are causative or instrumental. Finally, Action Reality deals with the type of action mental-vocal-physical as it is obtained. Ka:rmik Reality is produced in an a:nushangik holorchy from these realities as shown below. Dispositional Reality (+ K. R) Cognitive Reality [+ D. R. (+ K. R)] Ka:rmik Reality (K.R.) Socioculturalspiritual Reality [ + C. R. (+ D. R. (+ K. R.))] 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.)))]
Legend: Upward Pointing Arrow showing Bottom Up Cognition Process; Downward Pointing Arrow showing Top Down Cognition Process; Around-the-Object (I-I-I Radial, Ka:rmik) Process Linking Arrows of Cognition

Network 2: Holorchy of Ka:rmik Reality Experience is what an individual (C-q-D) goes through (in his antahkaraNam internal organ which functions as mind, intellect, memory and contemplation, and ego) by the use of his knowledge-organs and action-organs in the conduct of his existence in the surrounding environment which is not only physical (spatiotemporalmaterial; contextual actional) but also mental (thoughts and ideas, emotions and feelings; socioculturalspiritual) and vocal (lingual: spoken and written) and dispositional (Traits, Knowledge, and Va:sana:s) also. This surrounding environment is the context in which lingual action takes place and it is a complex of the internal and external forces that come into play when two or more ka:rmik actors interact for the construction of their ka:rmik reality. The locus of experience is the Consciousness-qualified-Disposition as the ji:va or (human)being who experiences his existence as being in a state, as performing an action, and as entering into a relationship between him and the participants in action or state of being and reaps the results of his actions as the experience of pleasure and/or pain. Put another way, as an individual performs karma (i.e., triple (mental, vocal, physical) action)), it gives karmaphalam (phalam fruits or results of karma action). This

karmaphalam is experienced as pleasure and/or pain according to its nature and this karmaphalabho:gam (bho:gam experience of karmaphalam) is interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) with his disposition (generating-specifying-directing-materializing) desires (leading to) effort (for performing) action (in a) context (which is a complex of inclinational-informational-habitual (IIH); socioculturalspiritual (SCS); and spatiotemporalmaterial (STM) environment). What is more, karma (action) is also I-I-Ied with disposition in another angle by being chosen through dispositional bias (springing from) disposition (and (creating)) response bias (that specifies) choice of action (which finally brings about) variation in action and contextual action (in the form of mental-vocal-physical or mixed action). These two processes are fundamental and foundational as the Principles of Creation of Action (PCrA) and Choice in Action (PchA) in ka:rmik linguistic theory and so also in ka:rmatics and are captured in the following equations as I-I-I processes. (2) PcrA: Disposition Desire Effort Action Result Experience (3) PchA: Disposition Dispositional Bias Response Bias Choice Variation in Action Contextual Action Lingual Action [ Result Experience] [ I-I-I or is interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-IIed) with] As already pointed out, ka:rmik reality is holorchically constructed from the five principal realities: [(dispositional-socioculturalspiritual-contextual actional-actional)-cognitional]. In a holorchy, in KLT, in the pre-action realization state (or the conceptualization process), the whole is conceptualized by a linear processing of the higher level into the lower level in a given set of parts by gradual devolution of the parts in a top down a:nushangik process; then it is realized (manifested in a material or energy form) by evolving the gradually devolved parts into the whole by gradual evolution, in a bottom up adhya:sik (superimpositional) process; and then finally experienced by unifying them (conceptualization and realization) by an around-the-object I-I-I radial ka:rmik process. Therefore, it is also multidimensional in its causation and I-I-Ied in its relation. In its most basic level, first, an individual experiences physical/mental/lingual pleasure/pain in a spatiotemporalmaterial plane (reality); second, as a socioculturalspiritual actor, this experience will be at the socioculturalspiritual plane superimposed on the STM plane and it becomes an STM-SCS experience; third, this STM-SCS experience becomes a contextual actional (CA) experience as action (A) is performed with other participants in a setting and it is further superimposed on it; fourth, this STM-SCS-CA-A experience is generated-specified-directedmaterialized (GSDMed) by disposition (which is a complex of InclinationsInformation-Habituation (IIH)) and hence it becomes Dispositionalized (Dalized). This D-STM-SCS-CA-A experience is cognized to be so and as a result we get D-STM-SCS-CA-A-C experience out of dispositional

knowledge which is a complex of all these six realities; This becomes ka:rmik knowledge for experience. This D-STM-SCS-CA-A-C experience occurs in and from ka:rmik reality as ka:rmik experience and never in vacuo. What is significant is that this experience is none other than the product of the totality of all the forces that come into play in the (lingual) interaction between ka:rmik actors for the construction of ka:rmik reality (i.e., context); these forces act and interact in a cause becoming the effect (like clay becoming a pot) process and become experience by gradual evolution like different streams and rivers mingling and flowing together to become Mother Ganga here there is a categorial transformation of forces into experience as in E= mc 2: internal and external forces as awareness, as meaning (specified knowledge of the world, situation, and text) transform into awareness as experience of pleasure and/or pain. Karmaphalabho:gam (experience) occurs in and from ka:rmik reality. Put another way, it is the ka:rmik reality of this and that to be so and so in such and such manner is experienced as that transforming into pleasure and/or pain. What this amounts to is a categorial transformation of ka:rmik reality into karmaphalabho:gam. But ka:rmik reality is the context and hence context is experience. Thus, context becomes experience by vivartam (apparent transformation) as a rope becomes a snake in semi-darkness. (4) Context Ka:rmik Reality Ka:rmaphalabho:gam (Experience) To elaborate more, experience becomes the context of all activity because all activity (including lingual action) is performed only for this antecedent experience it is the goal of all activity, in terms of this anticipated experience of pleasure it is the means of all activity, and on this experience it is the substratum of all activity. It is present like a tree in a seed at its un-manifest causal potential level, semi-manifest during its dynamic execution like a sprout of a tree and fully manifest at the synoptic level of realization of the tree as the tree but present all the time like the tree in the seed, sprout, and the tree. For example, I want to present a paper in this conference at Aligarh this is the desire springing out of my dispositions traits-knowledge-va:sana complex so that I can experience the results of my action as this and that to be so and so in such and such manner as meaning to give me pleasure and/or pain. This is the antecedent experience yet to be obtained but I put my effort only for that experience. Here, the desire is something like the main stream flowing from Gangotri, and Effort, Action, and Result are the subsidiaries that mingle in it to transform it into Ganga the experience as it appears in Rudra Prayag. Second, as I put effort to present a paper, I do so only in terms of that anticipated experience: presenting the paper in terms of the requirements of the conference, in terms of the means-goals that contribute to obtain this anticipated experience. Finally, I base my action on this experience of getting pleasure which is visualized either from my past experience or from the present speculated experience. Hence, in Ka:rmatics, context is viewed as sentence (discourse) experience. In such a view, knowledge, situation, and text are subsumed in the ka:rmik reality

in a radial relationship. The dispositional knowledge of the ka:rmik actors (as speaker/hearer) contributes to the production and reception of the utterances. As a result, knowledge as context apparently transforms into knowledge as situation which further apparently transforms into knowledge as text in an I-I-I network of dispositional bias producing a choice in the cogneme cognition in situation to text realization in a setting and scene. (5) Dispositional Knowledge Situational Knowledge Textual Knowledge Utterantial Knowledge Experiential Knowledge. III. Interpretation of Language in Context: A Ka:rmatic Analysis of Cross-Cultural Communication In cross-cultural communication, two or more sets of cultures intersect in the negotiation of meaning in interaction between two or more speakers belonging to different cultures. Again, at the more basic level of the interactants, the types of svabha:vam (literally sva self bha:vam (pattern of) thinking or cognition = disposition) that are there in the interactants come into play in the computation of meaning in each interactant according to his svabha:vam. Svabha:vam is a complex of guNa:s (traits) which produce likes and dislikes, knowledge of the phenomenal and noumenal world as the individual knows it subjectively but not as it is objectively and va:sana:s (internalized impressions (acquired by repeated actions as habits) producing spontaneous action in a context without any precedent or antecedent cause)). Svabha:vam is independent, individualistic and varied, converging to produce cultural norms with the collective but sometimes not, leading to bifurcation of social practices which may again spread to result in another cultural norm by convergence. It is stable for long periods but subject to change as habits change. Since each man has his own distinct way of reacting to contextual action or acting in a situation according to his svabha:vam, he understands, misunderstands, or does not understand the contextual action and creates his own meaning. This meaning transforms into experience and that experience alone impels reaction/action in the context mere meaning cannot produce action/reaction since all action is ka:rmik according to ka:rmatics. For example, encountering a beggar produces the knowledge that X is begging for money but you react/act only when you experience it; this experience of sympathy, etc. impels you to further action (be it verbal or non-verbal or both); otherwise you ignore him even though it may be cultural. That is why (lingual) action is considered experiential but not mere cultural or mental. Let us take some examples of cross-cultural communication at the levels of language, culture and religion to illustrate how experience produces proper understanding, misunderstanding, and non-understanding in interaction. 3. 1. Understanding in Communication

When both the interactants know each others lingual, cultural, and religious behaviour, they understand each other; however, when there is inadequate exposure to these types of behaviour, repair will bring about a proper understanding. Misunderstandings can be repaired by friendly explanations and sympathetic understanding on both the sides, but success of repair depends on the disposition of the interactants. If they are arrogant, dominating, and uncooperative such repairs will not be possible and they will lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Cultural assumptions of superiority, inferiority, hostility will also impact on the interaction and derivation of meaning. 3. 2. Misnderstanding in Communication Misunderstanding in comprehension can take place at many levels but three levels merit our attention: 1. Language; 2. Culture; 3. Activity. Let us discuss these levels below. 3. 2. 1. Misunderstanding at the Level of Language When two speakers of different languages converse, the influence of using those languages creates patterns of lingual behaviour in speaking and listening. In western theories, this is known as mother tongue interference or substratum effect. However, this is a misnomer for va:sanaic influence. It is actually the influence of va:sana:s (deeply ingrained impressions of action that will be impelled without an antecedent or precedent cause; sheer force of habit). What happens is as follows: 1. When a person learns a language, he learns certain types of lingual action which by constant repetitive use leave strong impressions in the mind. These impressions become so strong that they form paths of activity like the ridges in a farm. When water is sent into the farm, it automatically flows through these ridges; in a similar way, when you process cognition for production or comprehension of language, language is automatically forced through these paths into cognemes (units of cognition of an action as a concept/pattern/material form or structure) and later into ka:rmemes (units of experience of action and its results). When something happens, it is fitted into these paths irrespective of whether it is the same or not; mere similarity is enough to create such cognition. Hence, it is va:sanaic but not language interference somebody who is exposed to both types of behaviour will not be affected by mother tongue interference. So it is more appropriate to call it va:sanaic influence. This vasanaic influence affects behaviour at all levels of activity. In the case of language, it cuts across all levels of language from phonology, lexis, syntax, and semantics, and discourse at the formal level, all speech acts at the functional level, and production and comprehension of meaning at the semantic level, norms, practices and traditions the cultural level, and beliefs, opinions, etc. at the religious level. 3. 2. 1. 1. Cross-cultural Misunderstanding of Phonology Cross-cultural misunderstanding can occur at any level of phonology: phonemes, tones, intonation. When this misunderstanding occurs, it can be simple, humorous, or serious. For an Arabic (e.g., a Yemenese) speaker

of English, there is no /p/ -/b/ distinction and when this becomes a strong va:sana, there is a likelihood of miscomprehending and also using /b/ for /p/ and vice versa in English. Such miscomprehension can be simple, humorous, and serious also. Example 1. In an informal discussion with a Yemenese Ph.D. student of phonetics at EFLU, A (an Indian) was talking about misunderstandings about culture and religion and asked her (B) whether she knows that Hindus worship One God only without a second for which she replied in the negative. Then, A quoted two Upanishadic statements e:kam (one) e:va (only) a (not)dviti:yam (second); Satyam (Truth) Jnanam (Knowledge) Brahma (Brh limits ma withoutthe Infinite). She wrote these two statements and when she wrote Brahma she wrote it as Pramha. I pronounced Brahma as Bramha with a metathetical /m/ as in colloquial Telugu pronunciation. A: Do you know that Hindus worship One only without a Second God? B: No. A: They do. It is said in the Upanishads, E:kamea:dviti:yam. Satyam Jna:namantam Brahma. B: N.V. (She writes them. Brahma is written as Prahma) This is a simple misunderstanding of /b/ as /p/ without any serious implications. When I pointed out the distinction, she corrected it easily. But many racial jokes came out of such a lack of /p/ -/b/ distinction: A: Can I bark there?; I must go now. It is time to bray; etc. Example 2. A (an Indian) who was working in a Nigerian university in Maiduguri asked a friend (male) whether he speaks the Bura language, the following conversation took place: A: Do you speak the Bura language? B: What do you mean? (laughing) A: I mean do you know the language of the Bura people? B: Of course, I know. He, then, explained how I mispronounced the word. The word has a phonemic distinction by tone. Bura in high tone means the language Bura or the tribe Bura; however, in a low tone, it means the male genital. Had the conversation took place with a sensitive female, it would have been embarrassing! Example 3. A (an Indian) was in Calabar, Nigeria, to attend a conference. In the evening, he went to a restaurant near by the University of Calabar to take his supper. The waiter is a gentleman and he was respectful and deferential in his behaviour. When I ordered my meal, I told him that I am a vegetarian. He brought rice and beans curry and a glass of water and put them on the table. He bowed a little near me and asked in a soft voice, Do you like to have a fok?. I was immediately taken aback and said No. I miscomprehended the word fork by almost correctly understanding the short rounded vowel he pronounced the long back rounded vowel /o:/ as a short /o/ close to the /^/ sound. 3. 2. 1. 2. Cross-cultural Humour from Gender-based Wrong Collocations

Certain collocations and words are gender specific and produce laughter when used by the foreign teachers with Libyan female students. A used to use certain expressions such as Ya: be:ni It is tiresome, U:ka le:ya hanna my grandmothers weep, Wallahi By God! in a High Fall, and some other locality specific terms ending with the suffix o: such as mizallo:, imshio:, etc. 3. 2. 1. 3. Misunderstanding of Culturally Loaded Words Misunderstanding may crop up from using wrong words. For example, a Libyan student who is desirous of pleasing the Indian teacher may do code-switching by using a Hindi word or sentence. For example, a word like achcha! is allright but when the student says, tum/tu kaisa hai?, the teacher gets upset because of tum you which is low in honour, A:p you high in honour - will flatter the teacher. So also use of Mr. instead of Sir is culturally misunderstood by Indian teachers. Implicature by indirect speech acts may also cause misunderstanding. For example, when an Indian says, I will finish your work by tomorrow and does not finish it even after a week will cause misunderstanding. In a similar way, when an Arab Muslim says In sha Allah! and if he does not do it, it may cause a misunderstanding to an Indian. In Nigeria, to say no is considered rude and so they will say yes but mean no in many cases. For example, my friend said that he would get me a house allotted in the university within a week to a months time but he meant after one year. So I went to him week after week and he said tomorrow or next week and finally got the house allotted to me after one year. Thank God! 3. 2. 1. 4. Misunderstanding in Religious Enquiry The most tragic misunderstanding arises out of cross-religous misunderstanding, especially, between Hinduism and Christianity and Islam. In both the religions, there is a popular misconception of the Hindu view of God. According to Islam, La Ilaha Illallah There is no god except God and according to Christianity also, there is only one God but they also believe in Trinity: God the Father, Holy Ghost (Spirit), and the Son Christ. They are against idolatry. In Hinduism, you come across thousands of temples with thousands of names for God. Moreover, one comes across worship of idols installed in the names of these Gods. This to the outsiders is a sin and should be abolished. For example, Muslims call the Hindus mushriks and kafirs. This is the history and ground reality. The worst tragedy is that 99% of the people in these religions dont know that Sanatana Dharma called Hinduism is the first to proclaim that Brahman (God) is One Only without a Second E:kame:va:diti:jam, Brahman is the (Absolute Truth), (Infinite Knowledge) Satyam Jna:namanatam Brahma, etc. . Nowhere in Hinduism, a particular idol is considered a God. Most of the names of Isvara (literally, All Independent Controller (of the Creation or Universe)) literally proclaim this fact. For example, my name Bhuvaneswar The Independent Controller of this Space or Universe and hundreds of such other names as Visvanath Lord of the Universe, Jagannath Lord of the Universe, etc. speak about this

One Only without a Second God. Even a close look at the symbolism in the idols represents the nature and functions of the Creator of this Universe and the worship of the idols with names such as Aum Ananta:ya namah Aum salutations to the Infinite Aum Achyuta:yanamah Aum salutations to the Deathless, Aum Visvakartre: namah, Aum salutations to the Creator of this Universe, Aum Visvahantre: namah Aum salutations to the Destroyer of the Universe, etc. reveals and asserts explicitly that God is not a piece of rock. It will be absurd to think that an idol bound by space-time-matter can be the Controller of the Universe! The scriptures such as the Upanishads, the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, the Brahma Sutra:s are ONLY about this E:kame:va:dviti:yam Brahma and nothing else. Most significantly, this Brahman who is One Only without a Second is shown as Realizable by anyone who follows the procedure and conducts the investigation. I think probably- nowhere in any religion the path for realization of Brahman is so explicitly propounded with a theory, procedure, strategy, and techniques as in aparo:ksha:nubhu:ti of advaita by Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:da. However, Muslims, Christians, and even Hindus who are ignorant of this knowledge spread misinformation because of cross-cultural miscommunication and pragmatic and ka:rmatic misunderstanding of what God-worship is through idols. You know well the results of such miscommunication. When some Christian or Muslim who does not know that Hindus worship One Only without a Second God, who is empirically realizable by anyone who wants to do so, asks him out of evangelical or jihadic enthusiasm, there will be misunderstanding. Let me give you an example to illustrate this point. A: anta muslim? Are you a Muslim B: la. Hindu. No. Hindu. A: Hindoos! Anta salli bakra? Hindus! You worship cow? B: la. nahnu salli Allah, wahid. E:kame:a:dviti:yam. No. We worship God, one. One Only Without a Second A: Alhamdillallah! Allah wahid. Thank God! God is One. Here the problem of misunderstanding arises out of many factors. First, lack of scriptural knowledge of the concerned religion; second, scattered information about the principles and practices of the religion at one place; third, the very nature of the practice which is a mixed practice of representing the formless in terms of form via language describing the formless as this and that to be so and so in such and such manner through a symbolic representation. One of the main reasons for advocating this kind of worship I think is to make the invisible omnipresence of God visible through symbolic representation of the abstract in terms of the concrete. It is theo-psychological strategy to fix the alertness, attention and focus of the devotee on God and at the same time provide an immediate presence of God through the symbolically charged image to console, comfort, and protect the devotee. When a

devotee prays, He prays Isvara and not a piece of rock! It is only at very advanced levels, this practice is abandoned and the God within is worshipped incessantly. The names and the Vedic chants and the worship explicitly state and imply Brahman (Lit. One without Limits; God) as Formless donning the form of the universe by an apparent transformation owing to maya like a rope appearing as snake in semidarkness. At the end of the conversation, the misunderstanding is resolved to that particular Muslim and he thanks God. Proper exposition of the truth will resolve miscommunication. Such repairs in a ka:rmatically structured moves, turns, and exchanges in conversation will go a long way in resolving misunderstandings. Let us motiavate these cross-cultural phenomena in the karma:tic paradigm with a few examples. 3. 3. Motiation of Understanding, Misunderstanding, and NonUnderstanding Understanding, Misunderstanding, and Non-Understanding essentially involve cognition. In addition, cognition is aided by the mind through deliberation and decision-making. However this cognition does not take place in isolation. First, it takes place as it is happening to the individual; so his ego (ahamka:ram) comes into play. Second, his contemplative faculty (chittam) that provides alertness, attention, focus, and memory affects the process of cognition. Finally, it is always coloured by disposition which includes socioculturalspirituality of the speaker as the ka:rmik actor on the one hand and knowledge of the context and the specific action in the context in the overall network of his dispositional knowledge of the phenomenal world. If the ego does not come into play along with all its attendant factors, no meaning occurs. There will be plain cognition whose meaning is not determined to be this and that as so and so in such and such manner. Only as all these factors come into play, understanding takes place. If there is a fit between the world and his dispositional wit (knowledge), proper understanding arises; if not, misunderstanding (erroneous comprehension) arises with respect to the outside world. If the fit is not established rightly or wrongly, nonunderstanding arises. Let us explain how this fit happens through graphs and figures. 3. 3. 1. Motivation of Lingual Understanding In interaction, what is said or what is written is comprehended as this and that to be so and so in such and such manner. In a similar way, what is going to be said is also cognized as this and that to be so and so in such and such manner. In both the cases, disposition rules supreme and generates-specifies-directs-materializes the concerned lingual activity in the following stages. 3. 3. 1. 1. Contextualization of the Lingual Activity For any interaction to take place, there should be the interactants (cause) who create the interaction (the action or means) about the content of interaction (effect) on a stage for interaction which becomes the context.

The stage or the base for interaction is many layered. The first layer is the external layer of the spatiotemporalmaterial (STM) environment which provides the physical environment. For example, in Example 1, there are two interactants: An Indian who was in Libya and a Yemenese who is now in India. The content of interaction is about misconceptions about Sana:tana Dharma (Hinduism) and the stage for interaction is the linguistics lab as the spatial setting, the time between 2 and 3 P.M. as the temporal setting, and the lab equipment and furniture as well as the participants as the material setting. All the three joined together constitute the STM environment. The second layer is both external and internal which is the socioculturalspiritual (SCS) base. It is physical (external) as it is reflected in the STM environment and mental (internal) as it is also absorbed in the disposition of the interactants. For example, the cultural artefacts in the external environment as they are spatiotemporally located and the knowledge of the sociocultural praxis as it is internally absorbed in the disposition (personality) belong to the SCS layer. The third layer is the dipositional layer which is internal. It is a complex of traits-knowledge-va:sana:s (internalized impressions of actions as habits). Traits produce likes and dislikes as inclinations, knowledge gives information and vice versa of the phenomenal world containing objects, states of being, and action, and va:sana:s generate action in a specific manner and skill from internalized habits. These three factors are shown as the three outer walls of the chakram network for context. For example, in Example 1, the dispositional layers are the unique dispositions of I1 and I2 which are internall located in them. These walls enclose the contextual space in which interpersonal communication between the interactants takes place for the coordination (of coordination) of action for the fulfilment of desires and the experience of the results of action. This constitutes the act of interaction by I IPC and (C) COA. For example, I 1 enters into IPC with I2 to create an interaction for the fulfilment of his desire to clarify the misconception. In so doing, he is (C) COA of clarifying the misconception. The arrow marks indicate the direction of interaction. In the upper arc of the circle the arrows move from left to right from I1 to I2 to establish contact for IPC. In the lower arc, the arrows move in the opposite directions to bring in interaction by coordination of coordination of action through I IPC. There are four doors which open interaction for the coordination of coordination of action to fulfil the four basic desires: material, sociocultural, mental, and spiritual by constructing the five realities: dispositional, socioculturalspiritual, contextual actional, and actional realities. Here, the desire is an intellectual desire to clarify the misconception of thinking that in Hinduism there is worship of more than one God and to show that it is not so by providing two scriptural references: e:kame:va:diti:yam and satyam jna:namantam Brahma. What goes on in the interactants mind is the cognitive space shown by the space in the first circle; what happens in the outer and inner environment is shown by the space enclosed by the three layered walls. Finally we have three outer circles that circumscribe the entire network of activity in a context and become the ultimate context of experience as pleasure/pain/neutral. The experience of the results of coordination of

coordination of action is the attainment of pleasure by clarifying the misconception: A is happy that he clarified the misconception and B is now more well-informed about Hinduism but surprised to know that. Interactants Experience Interaction CCOA Network 0: I-I-I Network of Interaction As shown in the Network 0 above, Interactants, Language, and Context are I-I-I: they are interconnected because interactants interact in a context to produce interaction; they are interrelated because they produce interaction in a context; and they are interdependent because without interactants, no interaction can take place, without a context, no interaction can take place; and without interaction, no context comes into play, nor do the interactants. Finally, interaction takes place with a function: to fulfil the desire of the interactants and experience the results of their action.
Experience STM Layer SCS Layer IIH Layer 2 ii
I1 I IPC I2 (C) COA

Language Desire Results Context

3 iii

Context

iv

5 i 1

Neutral (Witnessing) a. Pleasure

Pain

Legend: reality;

transmission

from .. to .. ;

Cognitive Reality ; 6 ka:rmik

I Individual; (C) COA Coordination of Coordination of Action; IPC Interpersonal Communication; 1 Dispositional; 2 Socioculturalspiritual; 3 Contextual Actional; 4 Lingual Actional Realities; i Material ; ii Sociocultural; iii Mental (Intellectual/Emotional/Experiential); iv Spiritual Desires; Cognitive Space; Experiential Space Contextual Space; (Contextual Result)

STM Spatiotemporalmaterial; SCS Socioculturalspiritual; IIH Inclinational Informational Habitual Network 1. Ka:rmik Network for the Context of Cross-cultural Interaction as a Dispositional Process

This network broadly captures how context is the STM-SCS-IIH interconnected-interrelated-interdependent (I-I-I) network on the one hand

and how it apparently transforms into experience of the activity at the highest level by mutual superimposition and vivartam. The other examples 2 and 3 can also be analyzed in a similar way. In the case of the Example 2 for the miscomprehension of the tonal differences, the interactants are an Indian and a Nigerian man; the content of interaction is about whether B speaks a language called Bura, the stage is a staff room in the university of Maiduguri, Nigeria (STM), and the context is the STM + SCS (Indian culture and Nigerian culture) + the IIH of the interactants. The interactant I1 is ignorant of the tonal distinctions in the Bura language which caused the misunderstanding. Since I2 is friendly, the misunderstanding is repaired immediately. In the case of Example 3, the misunderstanding is caused because of mispronunciation of the word fork /fo:k/ in a low voice by bending a little and saying it like a whisper in a close position - I was sitting in the chair and he was close to me. When the word is pronounced /fok/, it sounded like the four lettered word and caused amusement and surprise. It is repaired by the non-verbal action of bringing the fork later when I asked him to bring me a fork after I realized what he meant. The explanation of the other examples can be done in a similar way. 3. 3. 1. 2. Cognition of the Lingual Activity as a Cogneme As we have already observed, disposition is the source for impulsion of desires. In the Example 1, there is a desire to clarify a misconception created out of the misinformation on Hinduism. This desire is born out of the disposition of the interactant 1 who has a trait of disliking discord and liking harmony, has knowledge of Hinduism about Brahman and knowledge about many Muslims not knowing the true facts, and a va:sana to seek truth and establish it through knowledge in a friendly manner. As shown in the graph, in the Disposition Quadrant, a dispositional impulsion is produced from the GuNa:s (Traits) as they impact on the Knowledge component and the Va:sana component which creates the desire in the STM-SCS context of meeting the second interactant. This impulsion raises the desire in C-q-D (Consciousness qualified Disposition) at the centre of the Graph 1. Again, the Knowledge component is also impacted by the SCS of the interactant 1 as a member (participant) of the Hindu religion and culture. His world view (spirituality/ideology) impacting on the Knowledge component is shown by the downward arrow shooting towards C-q-D. With this combined knowledge, the desire shoots up into the cognitive domain of the Concept Quadrant where the cognition of the concept (of the desire) as a cogneme takes place: that C where C means the Cogneme of the utterance to be made: That Do you know that Hindus worship One only without a Second God, that No, etc. This cogneme is cognized by interaction in a society (culture) by establishing a relationship between the interactants. It is shown by an upward shooting arrow. Finally, the cogneme is materialized as an utterance by a categorial transformation from a concept to an utterance as a text through lingual activity in the immediate STM-SCM context in the fourth Context Quadrant. This entire processing of a categorial transformation of dispositional impulsion into knowledge into

concept into utterance is captured in Graph 1A. In Graph 1B, the evolution of the concept into the utterance is captured through three circles of pasyanthi where conceptualization takes place in its unmanifest state, madhyama where the unmanifest concept becomes semi-manifest as a pattern and finally the vaikhari where the pattern is fleshed out with sound as the utterance it is like the architects vision transforming into a blue print transforming into the material form of the building. Graph 1: Combined Triaxial Graphs of Cognitive Actionality Quadrants (KLT)
Legend The Individual Consciousness (the Being in the Human Being or the soul or the ji:va) The Triad (sattva giving knowledge of activity; rajas giving choice of activity by traits; and tamas giving inertia or materiality of activity by va:sana:s) of Disposition Horizontal Line; Vertical Line; Diagonal Line: Horizontal, Vertical, and Diagonal Axes; I, II, III, and IV : the quadrants 1, 2, 3, and 4; gives rise to s 1.inner (pasyanthi cognitive); 2. medial ( madhyama pattern); 3. outer (vaikhari form or phonic) levels of realization of language
Spirituality Ideology Cogneme Participants Society Concept

World View Quadrant II Culture GuNa:s Disposition Quadrant I C-q -D

Concept Quadrant III Relation Context Context Quadrant IV

Outer Circle (Vaikahari) Media Circle (Madhyama)

(Dispositional) Knowledge

Vasanas (Phenomenal) Knowledge

Activity Contextual Actionality Actionality (lingual)

Inner Circle (Pasyanthi)

KLT Graph 1. A. Combined Triaxial Quadrants of Cognitive Actionality ;

B. Tricircled D-Q-C Creating Action

A ka:rmeme is a cogneme in essence but it is borne out of experience of the activity and hence, in other words, it is an experiential cogneme. When the sentence Satyam jna:namanatam Brahma is comprehended by its cogneme-cognition, the p-b lack of distinction va:sana comes into play and by force of habit comprehends the /b/ in Brahma as /p/ but not as /b/ and /b/ is experienced as /p/ by the power of svabha:vam (disposition). This happens as the two va:sana:s of I1 and I2 intersect each other in the C-q-D as shown in Network 2. The va:sana of the first interactant I 1 (Yemenese Ph.D. student) is superimposed on that of I 2 (the Indian) and /b/ is heard and experienced as /p/ - like a rope is seen as a snake in semidarkness. Mere cognition of the sound is not enough since it does not produce action / reaction. It is only experience of it that produces reaction. And so this experience gives rise to the knowledge of /b/ as /p/ and further impels B to write it as /p/ only. This reaction takes place in I 1s C-q-D as shown in Network 3 as experiential knowledge of /b/ as /p/. In the network 3, the cognition of I1 absorbs the sound /b/ and creates its own erroneous comprehension of it as /p/, as knowledge, in a flash of awareness by the sheer force of the va:sanaik disposition. This va:sanaik disposition is the cause for that erroneous comprehension. It is shown by the star in the central cord of the trident impelled by disposition as the base, the butt.

Language Traits 1 Interactant 1 Interaction Interactant 2 Knowledge 2

Traits 2

Knowledge 1 Va:sana:s1 Va:sana:s2

Network 2. Interactants-Language-Interaction Network

Language Comprehension Knowledge Form: /b/ comprehended as /p/ Function Content Disposition Style Context Disposition Manner HOW Cognition Action Interactant 1 Cognition Action Interactant 2 Place Time WHAT WHY

Inter . action

Why

How

What

Network 2: I-I-I Network of Action Process

Network 3: Trishu:l (Causal) Network of Interaction

Va:sanaik Disposition Language Reproduction: /b/ reproduced as /p/ Legend:

3 Strings on the Left: Function - Content - Form (Top) (Centre) (Bottom) Outer Circle: Context Locution Disposition Cognition

Will

3 Strings on the Right: Analyticity - Memory - Skills (Top) (Centre) (Bottom) Inner Circle: Style Erroneous Comprehension C-q-D (Consciousness-qualified-Disposition)

Interaction Mutual Superimposition Network 4: Dhamarukam (Process) Network of Interaction

Finally, its materialization in the form of the letter p in her notebook is shown in process network 4. Here as I 2 produces the locution by his volition (will), I1 listens to it also by volition. /b/ as knowledge of the

locution (shown by the green circle and the rim as the vaikhari of the locution) is received as /p/ by erroneous comprehension (shown by the red circle and its rim as the vaikhari of the comprehension). The central black ring is the linking part that brings about interaction. In the product Network 5, the actual materialized phenomenon, that is, /b/ as /p/ is shown. Here the form angle is the one where you realize the /p/ letter as the lotus emerging out of the interaction in the mind in a superimposed form on the fivefold realities and materialized on the paper.

Contextual Action Style Socioculturalspirituality Form

Mind Meaning Cognition Function

Context Disposition Network 5: Product Chakram of Form Realization

So also it is the case with Bura and fork and other examples on culture and religion. The entire process of the application of dispositional comprehension can be captured at the individual level by the Aumkara Chakram in a succinct manner as follows. By the convergence of mental and physical action, vocal action emerges out of the mouth and it is used for the coordination of coordination of action and the results of the action are experienced by the C-q-D shown by the black moon.
Mental Action
Action Experience Result

Coordination of Coordination of Action Physical Action Vocal Action

Network 5: Application Chakram Network of Interaction

IV. Summary and Conclusion In the analysis conducted above, a review of context as knowledge, situation, text, and culture has been made and it has been shown that context comprises all these and it is much more than that since it includes

disposition and experience. It has been further shown that context at the highest level apparently transforms into experience since it is for experience, in terms of experience, on experience and finally through experience that the coordination and/of coordination of action is carried out by lingual action for the fulfilment of desires and the experience of the results of action. As a result meaning is derived in communication as well as cross-cultural communication through context as experience. Three important domains for cross-cultural communication are identified as the domains of language, culture, and religion and one example of cross-cultural misunderstanding of the phoneme /b/ is exemplified through 5 networks and one graph in the ka:rmik linguistic /ka:rmatic paradigm. The entire basis for understanding, misunderstanding, and not understanding in cross-cultural communication lies in the role of disposition in generating-specifying-directing-materializing choices of meaning through an interplay of traits, knowledge, and va:sana:s. Traits decide the causality for action (WHY), for understanding something as that thing or misunderstanding something as another thing or not understanding something as anything. Knowledge decides the propositional content (effect) of understanding, misunderstanding, and not understanding (WHAT). Finally, the va:sana:s streamline the process of understanding, misunderstanding, and not understanding in certain ways (means) unique to the interactant (HOW). The I-I-I (interconnectedinterrelated-interdependent) nature of Why-What-How is captured in the network 6 given by the side of network 3 to explain the cause for interaction as experience of pleasure by the fulfilment of desires through the use of language as means. In that sense, cross-cultural communication is examined as ka:rmatic cross-cultural communication and not mere pragmatic cross-cultural communication. A detailed exposition of ka:rmatics in terms of Ka:rmik Principles and Maxims is not possible here owing to constraints of space and the reader is requested to see Bhuaneswar (No Date) for an elaborate discussion of these Ka:rmatic Principles and Maxims. Hope this paper serves as a spring board for further research in rethinking pragmatics as ka:rmik pragmatics (or Ka:rmatics).

References
1. Bhuaneswar, Chilukuri (2006). A Process Model of Proverbial Titling in Journalism. Festchrift for Michael Arnadouv, Vol.4. Rousse: University of Rousse, Bulgaria. 318-27. _______ (2007). Variation in Telugu and English Proverbs on Horse: Evidence for an Integrated Linguistic Theory of Culture. V Ogledalniia sviat na ezika I kulturaata. Eds. Rusi Rusev et al. Ruse: Leni-An, 2007, 69 -111. ______ (2009). The Phonotactics of R in English: Formal Linguistic Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory. Al Mergib Journal of English Studies, Vol.1. Ghasar Khiar, Al Mergib University.

2.

3.

4.

______ (2010). Derivation of Referential Meaning in Proverbs I Propositional Meaning: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach. Misurata Univeristy Journal of English Studies, Vol.1. Ghasar Khiar, Misurata University.

5.

______ (2012a). Speech Act Theory and Proverbial Discourse: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis, in: Scientific Newsletter, 2 (18), Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Voronezh, Russia. 6. ______ (2012b): Derivation of Referential Meaning in Proverbs 2 - Syntactic Meaning of Complex Speech Acts: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Analysis, In: Scientific Newsletter, 2 (20), Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Voronezh, Russia. 7. ______ (2013). 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. 8. ______ (No Date). Derivation of Meaning in Proverbs: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Approach. Bhuvaneswar Chilukuri on Scribd. www. Scribd. com 9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1991). The Notion of Context in Situation 10. Leech, Geoffey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited 11. Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to Discourse, Blackwell, Oxford.

*****