Sri: Krishnam Vande: Jagadgurum

Svabha:vastu Pravartate:
Indeed it is Nature that Acts

Na kartrutvam na karma:Ni lo:kasya srujati Prabhuh |

Na karmaphalasamyo:gam svabha:vastu pravartate:
The Lord creates neither agency nor objects for the world; nor
contact with the fruits of works; rather the nature of things
operates.
(Sri: Krshna Parama:tma : Sri:mad Bhagavad Gi:ta 5: 14)

Neither agency the Lord, i.e., the Self, impels not the world to do
the work; nor does He create objects that are sought after, viz.,
chariots, pots, mansions, etc., with the objects made.
Doubt: If nothing whatsoever the embodied self does or causes to be
done, who then operates, both as direct agent and causative agent?
Answer: Nature, prakrti as nescience, Ma:ya:, operates as will be
affirmed in Bhabavadgi:ta 7: 14: Indeed this divine Ma:ya:
consisting of the consistituents
(Sri:mad Bhagavad Gi:ta 5: 14, Sri: Samkara Bha:shyam)
Translation by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier

Prakrtye:va cha karma:Ni kriyama:Na:ni sarvasah|

Yahpasyati tatha:tma:namakarta:ram sa pasyati
He alone sees who, on all sides, sees actions (as) solely
performed by Prakrti and sees, also, the Self as a non-agent

(Sri: Krshna Parama:tma : Sri:mad Bhagavad Gi:ta 13: 29)

Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:da:h

FOUNDER, Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory

taya: prakrtya: e:va cha - na anye:na mahada:dika:ryakaraNa:ka:rapariNataya: karma:Ni va:ngmanahka:yarabhya:Ni kriyama:Na:ni nirvartyama:na:ni sarvasah
sarvapraka:raih (yah pasyati upalabhate:)..
(Sri:mad Bhagavad Gi:ta 13: 29, Sri: Samkara Bha:shyam)

Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:da:h

FOUNDER, Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory

by that prakrti, solely, that has transformed itself into effects and instruments such as mahat, etc., are the activities of speech, mind, and body performed, on all
sides in all manner of ways
(Sri:mad Bhagavad Gita 13: 29, Sri: Samkara Bha:shyam)

Dispositional Creativity in
English
Word-formation Processes:
Evidence for Ka:rmik Linguistic
Theory
By

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar
Pioneer of
Ka:rmik Linguistic Theory
Ka:rmik Literary Theory
Ka:rmik Language Teaching Approach

Aims and Objectives 1

Aim:
To Provide a Ka:rmik Linguistic
Motivation for
Word-formation in English
in the
Ka:rmik Linguistic Paradigm

Aims and Objectives 2

Objectives
1. To Discover Empirical Evidence for
The Principles of Exploration of
Variables
(PEV)
ECV

PEV

CNV

CNV(D)

ECV Exploration of Contextual Variables

PEV Productive Extension of Variables
CNV Creation of New Variables
CNV(D) Deletion of Variables

Aims and Objectives 3

2. To reveal the
Computational Design in the Linguitecture
of
English Word-formation
as a
Ka:rmikopoeitic Sub-System

Hypothesis
The linguitecture of English Wordformation is DISPOSITIONALLY
CREATED, MODIFIED, TRANSFORMED

and established by
Individual-Collective-ContextualConjunction-and-Standardization
of Lingual Action
(ICCCS(L)A))

Literature Review: Research

Gap

1. In the Linguistic Analysis of

English Word-formation
Processes, the focus is only on
the individual word-formation
processes and their description
and motivation and
Morpheme/Word-Based
Morphology.
2. The Linguitecture of English
Word-formation Processes is not
motivated as a WHOLE

Procedure of Motivation of
KLT

Procedure

1. 2. KLT Procedure

It consists of three divisions: 1. Pre-Language; 2. At Language; 3. Post-Language

In practice, KLT is applied by starting with 2. At Language Stage with a small review of
Approaches to Living as follows in 4 stages and then Post-language at the 5 th Stage. Within the 5th
Stage, the first stage Pre-Language is discussed.
0. Approaches to Living: 1. Different Approaches; 2. KA:RMIK LIVING APPROACH: 1.
Ka:rmik Living Programme; 2. The Game of Karmaphalabho:gam (GKPB)
1. first, by data collection :
(which gives us the WHAT of language in question for analysis);
2. second, patterning and structuring the data into clearly identifiable categories, types, and
classes (which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Organization);

3. third, discovering concepts and principles from the patterned and structured data
(which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Principles for Organization);
4. fourth, developing systemic choice networks for the system
(which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Dispositional Conceptualization); and

5. fifth, motivating systemic choices from disposition and building up the language as a
dispositional sociocognitive linguistic system

created and used for the construction of ka:rmik reality via dispositional reality via
actional reality.

Approach to Language from

Living

Trait Theory
Behavioural
Cognitive Approach
Personality
Psychodynamic
Approach
Theories
Humanistic Approach

Sociocultural
Approach

In trait theory, the differences in the characteristic modes of

thought, desires, and behavior (patterns of personality) are
explained with reference to the underlying trait dimensions;
in behavioural-cognitive approach, these differences are
explained by stressing the importance of the situation and of
learning;
in the psychodynamic approach, they are explained in terms of
submerged feelings, unconscious conflicts, and desires;
in the humanistic approach, they are explained via how people
achieve selfhood, and realize their potential,
and in the sociocultural approach, they are explained in terms
of how a particular culture is described in terms of another
cultures (Western Culture) conceptions of human individuality
and the self.
All these theories are atomic and take into consideration only
one or more aspects of living but not all into consideration; that
is why each is true in its own limited way but not true as a
whole.
The Ka:rmik Living theory takes all of them into
consideration and develops the theory of language. This

Game of Karmaphalabho:gam (GKPB)1

In Ka:rmik Living Theory, living systems (especially,
human beings) are programmed in

a Universal Ka:rmik Living Programme

where each individual has his own

Particular Combination and Permutation
(as Variation) of KLP as IKLP these variations can be intrinsically
GCSDMed from the very constitution of the rules with multiple
variables (not as binary choices) in
US [Action Living- Lingual Action].
The basis of the IKLP is UKLP but it is fashioned out according to
ones individual Karma (as disposition) in the
[Supra-Macro-Micro]Cosmic Network
from US [Action-Living-Lingual Action]
for the construction of his/her own ka:rmik reality in a holarchy.
It is done through the ka:rmik principles of action and its experience

GKPB 2
In Game Theory, there are constitutive rules which
are fixed but the performative rules are not.

In KLT, there are experiential (ka:rmik), choice (dispositional), and

action (KDA) rules vis a vis the Constitutive and Performative rules
and are independently I-I-Ied through Disposition in a language for
constructing Ka:rmik Reality.
The KDA rules of language are SEMIOTIC;
are created-modified-transformed by
dispositional- [socioculturalspiritual-contextual actional]- cognition
of lingual action
in the construction of
ka:rmik reality in a holarchy by ICCCSA.
This is a ka:rmik process with its own principles and concepts
such as Principles of Creation of Action [eg. PEV, Creation OA;
P.Choice OA, P.Cognition OA, PO Symbolization of Action]; ICCCSA;
N-w-N; A-W-F;

GKPB through Languageing

In a game, there are players, playing instruments (means), and play

(for scoring points on a competitive basis), a field (base), and rules
bound by SPACE-TIME-MATTER.
In the Game of Living (GKPB), the STM limitations are different: No
STM limits across the board in principle

The Game of Languageing is a game (languageing)-within-a-game

(of living)-as-a-double (ie., semiotic) game;
It is played by the principle of dispositional, discrete permutation
It is played as a tool as a system as a resource all as means in a
bigger game of living played in the still bigger game of creation.

Ka:rmik Constitutive and Performative

Rules

In ordinary games such as football, cricket, etc., the games are fixed as
this and that to be so and so in such and such manner in terms of
the constitutive rules and all the players have to follow them. For
example, scoring goals in football. However, the players can have an
option in their performance to score the goals by different,
permissible combinations and permutations of the moves in scoring
the goals. But they should not switch from one game to another
game within the same game. They have to follow the fixed rules.
In the games of ka:rmaphalabho:gam (through languageing), the
constitutive rules are dispositionally GCSDMed by each individual
unlike in ordinary games, ie., each individual designs his own game
freely. For example, an individual may like to play the game of a
doctor and then mix it with farming and play the game as he likes.
There is flexibility in the performative as well as the constitutive
rules; and language gaming is a game within a game.
It is only at the US [Action-Living-LA], the rules are fixed as Design
(Linguitecture) and Construction (Languageering) Rules which
form the basis for constitutive and performative rules.

GKPB 2 Contd.
This is the point of departure from Generative Grammar, where the
constitutive rules are taken to be FIXED in the UG along with the
Parameters through binary (parametric) choices;
In SFG, the choice of the constitutive (paradigmatic) rules gives us the
performative (syntagmatic) structures in a system as analytical
steps in the grammars construal of meaning (Halliday and
Matthiessen:Introduction to Functional Grammar 2004: 24)
NO conscious choice is suggested
[In KLT, it is the collectivized conscious choices that determine both the
paradigm and the individual choice the syntagm.]
In Cognitive Linguistics, grammar is conceptualization in terms of
certain principles.

Paradigm-Syntagm-Ka:rmagm
Paradigm is what goes instead of what;
Syntagm is what goes together with what
Ka:rmagm is why becomes what as how
the ka:rmik (experiential) choice of both the paradigm and syntagm [para-syngm] as this and
that to be so and so in such and such manner.
Ka:rmagm is dispositionally created by a flash of insightful behaviour (at the pasyanti
conceptualization level) along the diagonal axis and resolves itself into the vertical
(paradigmatic) and horizontal (syntagmatic) axes in open-ended gradual evolution (at
the madhyama (P&S) level). The ka:rmik axis is the cause of the other two axes.

Paradigmatic Axis

Ka:rmatic Axis
Syntagmatic Axis

Finally, it is realized as the concerned word at the vaikhari (Material Form) level. All these three phases are
dispositionally GCSDMed by CAUSALLY experiential (KA:RMIK) processing for the construction of
Ka:rmik Reality. Here, the cause decides the system as well as the structure.

QLB as an Example

In the case of QLB, along the paradigmatic axis, a QUOTEFIX () goes

instead of a Prefix, Suffix, etc. in the QLB Affixation process.

Prefix
Affixation
Suffix
Quotefix (the paradigmatic choice)
Along the syntagmatic axis, the initial, medial, and final positions of the
quotefix are the choices:
1. Initial Quotefix: alana:Ti smrutulu
2. Medial Quotefix: re bels mo:ta
3. Final Quotefix: da: ruNa bandhamulu

The ka:rmik axis is the fountain spring of the Disposition-qualifiedConsciousness (D-q-C) which by a flash of insightful behaviour sees, as
it were, the QLB process owing to its dispositional creativity and
resolves it into the paradigmatic axis of QLB as a choice and into the
syntagmatic axis of QLB in an order (in terms of initial, medial,
final). Finally, it is realized as the concerned word used in its context.
Such usage becomes a posteriori a rule in word-formation processes
by ICCCSA.

GKPB 3
All the non-ka:rmik linguistic theories
such as
TG, SFL, Cog. Grammar can include

Disposition into their framework

and make them

CAUSAL (WHY) + [ MEANS

EFFECT]

instead of merely

MEANS (HOW)-

Theory of Language
Creation in KLT from a
Theory of Living 1: MPCEE

Material Plane of Creation

Evolution Equation:

Awareness

Energy
Supra-cosmic Level
Macrocosmic Level

Microcosmic Level
[
Knows; as apparently
transforming into]

Theory of Language Creation in KLT from a

Theory of Living 2: APCEE
Actional Plane of Creation Evolution
Equation:
a. Actional Plane of Creation:
Birth-Death Cyclic Actional Sub-Plane:
[Birth
Survival
Growth Transformation Decay
Death] Cycle
. b. Triple Actional Sub-Plane:
Birth Death Cycle Triple Action Experience

Within this triple actional sub-plane, there is the

lingual plane.
Disposition (personality) uses this plane as a
means to process knowledge to coordinate the
coordination of activity (by lingual activity) and

Theory of Language Creation in KLT from a

Theory of Living 3: LASPE

c. Lingual Actional Sub-Plane

Equation:
Disposition (personality)
Dispositional Knowledge
Language
Action
Experiential Knowledge
Language
Experience
[This lingual activity is itself processed
through many layers in its formation,
application, transmission, preservation,

Theory of Language Creation in KLT

from a Theory of Living 4 : EPCEE
3. Experiential Plane of Creation
Evolution Equation:
Objects
Action
Experience by Living Systems

Within this material plane of creation, human

beings are embodied as living objects with a
body, mind, and consciousness (soul) as well as
disposition (personality) that impels desires
and goads them to fulfill their desires by triple
action (mental, vocal, and physical) to
ultimately experience the results as pain, or
pleasure, or witnessing in their
spatiotemporalmaterial, socioculturalspiritual,
contextual actional plane.

The Linguitecture of English WFPs:

Use of Language

Basic Constituents of a
Word
STEM
(ROOT in
Morphology)
Three Basic
Constituents
in a Word
MORPHEME)

BASE
(BASE

WORD

STEM OF A WORD
A STEM is
the form of a word stripped of all
affixes that is recognizable as such in
English: eg: man, person, apply,
abattoir, rhinoceros
(Quirk, et al 1986: 1519).

BASE OF A WORD
A base is a unit with which an affix is combined but it can be distinct or
identical with the stem as follows:
(1)
Word: jealous = base jeal+
affix
[the base here is identical with the stem, but neither is a word in
English]
(2)

a. Word: polarize =
b. Word:
depolarize =

-ous

base polar + affix ze;

affix de- + base

polarize
[the base here is not identical with the stem in either case, the stem
being pole; but both the base and the stem are English words]
(3) (be)spectacled [wearing spectacles] = base spectacle +
affix -ed
[here the base is identical with the stem, but although the word
spectacle exists in English it is only the stem of the plural spectacles
that constitutes the base in spectacled ]
(see Quirk et al 1986: 1518-19)

Principle of Analogy
In addition to these three basic constituents, we can include
the principle of analogy
as a cognitive constituent
in the formation of words by derivation.

(4) x-otherapy
[treatment by means of x on the analogy (both formal
and semantic) of a pattern of words such as psych-otherapy; physi-o-therapy]: a pattern or paradigm of
similar items becomes established, and new coinings are
made conforming to this pattern by derivation.

STEM (ROOT), BASE (BASE

MORPHEME) AND WORD:
RELATION

The relationship between stem (root), base (base

morpheme) and word can be captured by the following
equation:
(4)

Stem/Word
Base
Word
Affixation/Analogy
[
apparently transforms into ;
gradually
evolves into ;
through the process of ]
This is with reference to words formed from stems as
bases (roots in morphology) and bases (base
morphemes according to Quirk et al 1986: 1520).

Dispositionalization of WFP
Equation

The Linguitecture of English WFPs:

Use of Language

The Linguitecture of English WFPs:

Creation of Language

ENGLISH WORD-FORMATION
PROCESSES

English
WFPs

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

Affixation
Affixation is the formation of words
by adding derivational affixes to
different types of bases.
An affix is a not-root or a bound
morpheme that modifies the
meaning and / or syntactic category
of the stem in some way.

Degrees of Derivation
1. Zero - degree of derivation is ascribed to simple
words, i.e. words whose stem is homonymous
with a word-form and often with a rootmorpheme, e.g. atom, haste, devote, etc.
2. First - derived words whose bases are built on
simple stems and thus are formed by the
application of one derivational affix, e.g.
atomic, hasty, devotion, etc.
3. Second - derived words formed by two
consecutive stages of coining, e.g. atomical,
hastily, devotional, etc.

Network of Derivation

Degree of Derivation

Zero
First
Second

Categories of Affixes 1

Categories of Affixes 2

System Network for Affixes

Affixation

Addition:
Transformation:
Deletion:

Types of Suffixes
2. According to the part of speech formed suffixes fall into
several groups:
a) noun-forming suffixes: -age (breakage, bondage); -ance/ence (assistance, reference); -dom (freedom, kingdom); -er
(teacher, baker); -ess (actress, hostess); -ing (building, wasing);
b) adjective-forming suffixes: -able/-ible/-uble (favourable,
incredible, soluble); -al (formal, official); -ic (dynamic); -ant/-ent
(repentant, dependent);
c) numeral-forming suffixes: -fold (twofold); -teen (fourteen);
-th (sixth); -ty (thirty);
d) verb-forming suffixes: -ate (activate); -er (glimmer); -fy/-ify
(terrify, specify); -ize (minimize); -ish (establish);
e) adverb-forming suffixes: -ly (quickly, coldly); -ward/-wards
(backward, northwards); -wise (likewise).

Semantic Categorization of
Suffixes
3. Semantically suffixes fall into:
a) Monosemantic:the suffix -ess has only
one meaning female tigress, tailoress;

a) Polysemantic: the suffix -hood has

two meanings:
1)condition or quality falsehood,
womanhood;
2)collection or group brotherhood.

Suffixation according to
Denotational Meaning
4. According to their generalizing denotational
meaning suffixes may fall into several groups.
E.g., noun-suffixes fall into those denoting:
a) the agent of the action: -er (baker); -ant
(accountant);
b) appurtenance: -an/-ian (Victorian, Russian); -ese
(Chinese);
c) collectivity: -dom (officialdom); -ry (pleasantry);
d) Diminutiveness:-ie (birdie); -let (cloudlet); -ling
(wolfling).

Compounding

Noun-noun compound: note + book notebook

adjective-noun compound: blue + berry blueberry
Verb-noun compound: work + room workroom
Noun-verb compound: breast + feed breastfeed
Verb-verb compound: stir + fry stir-fry
Adjective-verb compound: high + light highlight
Verb-preposition compound: break + up breakup
preposition-verb compound: out + run outrun
Adjective-adjective compound: bitter + sweet
bittersweet
preposition-preposition compound:in + to into

Conversion
"Conversion is the derivational process whereby an item
changes its word-class without the addition of an affix"
(Quirk, Randolph and Greenbaum, 1987: 441). Thus, when
the noun 'sign' (1) shifts to the verb'sign(ed)'(2) without
any change in the word form we can say this is a case of
conversion1. However, it does not mean that this process
takes place in all the cases of homophones (Marchand,
1972: 225). Sometimes, the connection has to do with
coincidences or old etymological ties that have been lost..
For example, 'mind' (3 and 4) and 'matter' (5 and 6) are
cases of this grammatical sameness without connection by
conversionthe verbs have nothing to do today with their
respective noun forms in terms of semantics (ibid.: 243).

Types of Conversion
3.1 Conversion from verb to noun
the nouns 'experience
'fear
'feel or
'hope

Conversion 2
2. Conversion from noun to verb
They can express the action of putting in or on the
noun:
such as in
pocket(ed) (to put into the pocket), 'film(ing)' (to
put into a film) and
'practice' (32).
These verbs can also have the meaning of "to
provide with (the noun)" or "to give (the noun)", like
'name' (33) (to give a name to somebody), 'shape'
(34) (to give shape to something) or 'fuel(s)' (35).

Conversion 3
3 Conversion from adjective to verb
Adjectives can also go through the process of
conversion, especially to verbs.
De-adjectival verbs get the meaning of "to make
(adjective)".
It can be easily seen by means of examples like
'black(ed)' (45) (to make black), 'open' (46),
'slow(ing)' (47)...
In some cases, when these transitive verbs are used
intransitively, a secondary conversion may happen
(Quirk, 1997: 1561-1562), as it will be explained later
on.

Conversion 4
4 Conversion from a closed category to any other category
Closed-class categories can also undergo conversion. Although their frequency is
much less common, the process is not ungrammatical. All morphologic categories
have examples of this kind (Cannon, 1985:425-426).
Prepositions are probably the most productive ones. They can easily become
adverbs, nouns and verbs. This is the case of 'up' (48 and 49) and 'out' (37 and 50).
Conversion to noun may as well occur in adverbs like in 'outside' (51) and 'inside'
(51); conjunctions, as regarded in 'ifs' (52) and 'buts' (52);
interjections and non-lexical items, like 'ho ho ho's' (53) and 'ha ha ha' (54); affixes
such as 'mini-' (55) can appear as noun (56) and proper noun (55)....
Conversion to verb is frequent in onomatopoeic expressions like 'buzz' (57), 'beep'
(57) or 'woo(ing)' (58). Finally, phrase compounds can appear as adjectives, such
as in 'borrow-the-mower' (59), 'down-to-earth' (60) or 'now-it-can-be-told' (61).

COMPOUNDING
Noun-noun compound: note + book notebook
adjective-noun compound: blue + berry
blueberry
Verb-noun compound: work + room workroom
Noun-verb compound: breast + feed breastfeed
Verb-verb compound: stir + fry stir-fry
Adjective-verb compound: high + light highlight
Verb-preposition compound: break + up
breakup
preposition-verb compound: out + run outrun
Adjective-adjective compound: bitter + sweet
bittersweet

Partial Conversion
1 Conversion from noun to adjective
'Mahogany music box' can be used in
an attributive way, "the music box is
mahogany". This implies 'mahogany'
is a denominal adjective.

Partial Conversion 2
2 Conversion from adjective to noun
Adjectives can also shift into nouns,
though it is not very frequent. It
mainly happens in well-established
patterns of adjective plus noun
phrase. Nominalisation occurs when
the noun is elided and the adjective
is widely used as a synonym of an
existing set pattern.
This could be the case of 'a Chinese

Reduplication
Reduplication is a linguistic form which
contains systematic non-recursive repetition
of phonological material for morphological or
lexical purposes.
1.1Form1.1.1Full and partial reduplication
1.1.2Reduplicant position
1.1.3Copying direction
1.1.4Reduplication and other morphological
processes
1.1.5Phonological processes, environment, a
nd
reduplicant-base relations

Reduplication in English
English has several types of reduplication, ranging from informal expressive vocabulary (the first four forms below) to grammatically meaningful
forms (the last two below).

Rhyming reduplication: hokey-pokey, razzle-dazzle, super-duper, boogiewoogie, teenie-weenie, walkie-talkie, hoity-toity, wingding, ragtag. Although
at first glance

Exact reduplications(baby-talk-like): bye-bye, choo-choo, night-night, nono, pee-pee, poo-poo. Couscous is not an English example for reduplication,
since it is taken from a French word which has aMaghrebiorigin.
Ablautreduplications: bric-a-brac, chit-chat, criss-cross, ding-dong, jibberjabber, kitty-cat, knick-knack, pitter-patter, splish-splash, zig-zag, flimflam.
In the ablaut reduplications, the first vowel is almost always ahigh vowel
and the reduplicated ablaut variant of the vowel is alow vowel.
Shm-reduplicationcan be used with most any word; e.g.babyshmaby,cancer-schmancerandfancy-schmancy.

Reduplication 2
Comparativereduplication:
In the sentence "John's apple looked redder and redder," the reduplication of
thecomparativeindicates that the comparative is becoming more true over
time, meaning roughly "John's apple looked progressively redder as time went
on." In particular, this construction doesnotmean that John's apple is redder
than some other apple, which would be a possible interpretation in the
absence of reduplication, e.g. in "John's apple looked redder."
Contrastive focus reduplication:
Exact reduplication can be used with contrastive focus (generally where the
first noun isstressed) to indicate a literal, as opposed to figurative, example
of a noun, or perhaps a sort ofPlatonic idealof the noun, as in
"Is that carrot cheesecake or carrot CAKE-cake?".[3]This is similar to the
Finnish use mentioned below.

Reduplicant Position 3
Reduplicant position
Reduplication may beinitial(i.e.prefixal),final(i.e.suffixal),
orinternal(i.e.infixal), e.g.
Initialreduplication inAgta(CV- prefix):
[uab]'afternoon'[uuab]'late afternoon'(u-uab)[aaj]'a long
time'[aaaj]'a long time (in years)'(a-aaj)(Healey 1960)
Finalreduplication inDakota(-CCV suffix):
[hska]'tall (singular)'[hskaska]'tall (plural)'(hska-ska)[wate]'good
(singular)'[watete]'good (plural)'(wate-te)(Shaw 1980, Marantz 1982,
Albright 2002)
Internalreduplication inSamoan(-CV- infix):
savali'he/she walks' (singular)savavali'they walk' (plural)(sa-vavali)alofa'he/she loves' (singular)alolofa'they love' (plural)(a-lo-lofa)
(Moravcsik 1978, Broselow and McCarthy 1984)le tamaloa'the man'
(singular)[1]tamaloloa'men' (plural)(tama-lo-loa)Internal reduplication is
much less common than the initial and final types.

SHORTENING (Dimunitives)
1. shortening is the formation of a word
by cutting off a part of the word.
a) initial (or aphesis):fend (v) <
defend,
phone <
telephone;
b) medial (orsyncope): specs < spectacles,
fancy
< fantasy;
c) final (or apocope): lab laboratory, exam
examination;
d) both initial and final: flu < influenza,
fridge < refrigerator;.

Motivation in Generative Grammar

1
1. Genetic Inheritance
Only the Hardware but not the Software

* the Vocal Organ

* Analyticity
* Disposition at Birth
Not
* RULES OF
LANGUAGE

Motivation in Generative Grammar

2
2. AUTONOMY and LANGUAGE
SPECIFICITY
* Rules are Products of General
Cognitive
Abilities
* They are A POSTERIORI
Not
A

Motivation in Generative Grammar

3
3. Internal Linguistic Evidence
*
*
*
*

QLB in Telugu
Backwords in English
Reduplication
Blends

Motivation in Functional Linguistics

1
1. Language is as it is because of what
it does
(in the functional sense(?)Halliday)
2. Language is as it is NOT because of
what it does
BUT
because of what it is INTENDED to do
what it does (in all senses:
Bhuvaneswar)

Motivation in Functional Linguistics

2
1. Alternative Ways of Saying the
Same Thing
(Not
clear)
2. Synonymy
Send Again
Resend

Vs

Motivation in Cognitive Linguistics 1

1. CHOICE in Cognition
motivated)

(Not

2. Cognition is ONLY Instrumental

3. Cognition is NOT Agential

Ka:rmik [Creation-Living-Language]:
Universal Sciences of Action-Living-Lingual Action

Ka:rmik Creation Programme :

Ka:rmik Living Programme:

US Action

US Living

Manifest
Ka:rmik Language Programme:
US Lingual Action
Unmanifest

Fundamental Types of Language

Natural Form Oriented Language:

Immanent Intelligence in
Nature is the Creator

Speech

Name-Oriented :

Languages
Immanent Intelligence in
Disposition is the Creator

Patterns
:

Natural
Root Langs.

Sign
Artificial

Transformed :
Langs.

Parent Daughter.
Language Families
Diffusion of Ling.

Nature of Language
Formation
Creation: Cause: DFP

Nature of
Language
Formation

Modification: Causes:
Internal: Novelty, Fashion
Disposition
Change
External:

Analogy,Borrowing

Transformation: Causes:
Biological
Drift
Dispositional:
Shift

Networks within
Networks
Network 1
SubNetwork i..n

Network 3
Sub-Network i..n
Network i..n

Network 2
Sub-

PEV
The Principles of Exploration of
Variables
(PEV)
ECV
PEV
CNV
CNV(D)
ECV Exploration of Contextual Variables
PEV Productive Extension of Variables
CNV Creation of New Variables
CNV(D) Deletion of Variables

English WFP Principles

Holarchy of Ka:rmik Reality

Dispositional Reality (+

K. R)

Cognitive Reality [+ D.

R. (+ K. R)]

Socioculturalspiritual

Reality

[ + C. R. (+ D. R. (+ K.

R.))]
Ka:rmik Reality

Contextual Actional R.
[+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D.

R. (+ K. R.)))]
Mental Action
Vocal Action

3/1/16

Actional Reality

Construction of Ka:rmik Reality via

Dispositional Reality

Ka:rmik Reality is constructed in a Pentastratal N-w-N

Framework.
K.R.
D. R.
Cog. R
SCS R
CA. R.
A. R
But Dispositional Reality GCSDMs Cognitive -SCS-CA-A
Realities. In other words,
Action is dispositional-cognitive- socioculturalspiritualcontextual actional- action OR
Action is dispositionally cognized as socioculturalspiritualcontextual actional-action.
Hence, DISPOSITIONAL COGNITION plays the critical
role in the CREATION, MODIFICATION, AND
TRANSFORMATION OF LANGUAGE IN ITS VARIETYRANGE-DEPTH. Each and every aspect of language is
qualified by
Disposition that colours cognition and rules supreme.

Disposition and Language [C-P-A-T-R-P/D-D] or

for short [CPAT]

According to KLT, language is GCSDMed by

Disposition. If this is true, then the role of
disposition should be evident in the

Creation

Production

Application

Transmission

Retention

Perpetuation/

Decay leading to Death

of Language

CPAT of WFP
Words can be analyzed in terms of
Process
Syllable Structure
Base Stem Word
as they are
created
modified
variety
transformed
in their range
depth
of linguistic operations

KLT Motivation 1 of Creation of WFPs

When a word is created, it is created

by a
Particular Process

in a
Particular Syllable Structure

having a
Particular Base-Stem-Word

by
dispositional choices
of the Individual/Collective

Creation of WFPs: KLT Motivation

By observing how words are formed

by
direct evidence when it is available in
the form of interviews,
questionnaires, written records
We will be able to know the role of
disposition
OR when such direct evidence is not
available
We can find the role of disposition by
Effect-to-Means-to-Cause Logic and

Levels of Reasoning
1. Actional Reality Reasoning: we get two types of reasoning at the lower level of
action as the
effect (WHAT: Material Form) :
1. 1. Individual action-oriented Reasoning: Abduction
1. 2. Collective action-oriented Reasoning:
Comprehensive Induction;
[Getting the maximum number of categories, types/classes]
Corollary: WFPs are open-ended but limited.
Deduction (for checking)
2. Dispositional Reality Reasoning: we get one type of reasoning at the middle level
of choice of action as the
means (HOW: Pattern and Structure):
Transduction
[Inferring a higher level abstraction of subtle P&Ss from an overview of the gross
types and patterns network realized in material form, i.e., discovering principles
and concepts from the P&S data and developing systemic choice networks for the
system]
3. Ka:rmik Reality Reasoning: We get one type of reasoning at the higher level of
experience of action as the
cause (WHY: Concept for Form or Function/
Experience of the Results of Action) :
Ka:rmik-oduction
[Motivating systemic choices from disposition and motivating language as
a dispositional socio-cognitive linguistic system (i.e., a ka:rmik system)

Actional Reality Reasoning:

1. Induction - 2. Deduction - 3. Abduction
Induction 1: Example from Non-Linguistic Reality

allows inferringfrom, where does not follow

necessarily from;might give us very good
reason to accept, but it does not ensuretruth.

(Indeed, it
turns out
that
some
swans
are

For example, if all swans that we have

observed so far are white, we may
induce that the possibility that all swans
are white is reasonable. We have good
reason to believe the conclusion from
the premise, but the truth of the
conclusion is not guaranteed.

Induction-Deduction-Abduction -Transduction Vs
Ka:rmik-o-duction
Induction 2 : Example from Word-formation Processes

allows inferringfrom, where does not follow

necessarily from;might give us very good
reason to accept, but it does not ensuretruth.

Indeed, it
turns out
that in
English
some
affixes

For example, if all the English affixation

processes that we have observed so far are
pre-fixation and suffixation processes, we
may induce that the possibility that all
words are formed by pre-fixation and
suffixation is reasonable. We have good
reason to believe the conclusion from the
premise, but the truth of the conclusion is
not guaranteed. Moreover, induction cannot
motivate WFPs since they are open ended
and dispositionally creative.

Induction-Deduction-Abduction -Transduction Vs Ka:rmik-o-duction

Comprehensive Induction 3 : Example from WFPs

allows inferringfrom, where does not follow

necessarily from;might give us very good
reason to acceptbecause of the comprehensive
data, but it does not ensuretruth. It is better
than simple induction.

Indeed, it
turns out
that in
English
some affixes

For example, if all the English affixes

that we have observed so far are 8:
pre-fix, suffix,
suffixoid, circumfix,
interfix, duplifix, simulfix, suprafix ,
we may induce that the possibility that all
words are formed by these affixes is
reasonable. We have good reason to believe
the conclusion from the premise, but the
truth of the conclusion is not guaranteed
since they are open ended and
dispositionally creative; hence
induction cannot motivate WFPs

Actional Reality Reasoning II: Deduction

Deduction 1 : Example from
Non-Linguistic World
For example, given
that all bachelors
are unmarried
males, and given
that this person is a
bachelor, one can
deduce that this
person is an
unmarried male.

allows
derivingfromonly
whereis a formal
logical consequenceof.
In other words,
deduction derives the
consequences of the
assumed. Given the
truth of the
assumptions, a valid
deduction guarantees
the truth of
the conclusion.

Induction-Deduction-Abduction -Transduction Vs
Ka:rmik-o-duction

Deduction 2: Example from Language

For example, given that in
dimunition a part of the
word is cut, and given that the
word phone is formed by
cutting a part of the word telefrom telephone, one can
deduce that this word is a
dimunitive. However,
deduction is of little use in
motivating word-formation
processes but it can be used
to test how a word is
formed according to the
already known
WFPs.

allows
derivingfromonly
whereis a formal
logical consequence
of. In other words,
deduction derives the
consequences of the
assumed. Given the
truth of the
assumptions, a valid
deduction guarantees
the truth of
the conclusion.

Actional Reality Reasoning III: Abduction

The American philosopherCharles Sanders Peirce(18391914) first

introduced the term as "guessing".[7]Peirce said that toabducea hypothetical
explanationfrom an observed circumstanceis to surmise thatmay be true
because thenwould be a matter of course.[8]Thus, to abducefrominvolves
determining thatissufficient, but not necessary, for.
For example, suppose we observe thatthe lawn is wet. Ifit rained last night, then it would
be unsurprising thatthe lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility
thatit rained last nightis reasonable (but note that Peirce did not remain convinced that a
single logical form covers all abduction);[9]however, some other process may have also
resulted in a wet lawn, e.g. dew or lawn sprinklers. Moreover, abducing thatit rained last
nightfrom the observation of a wet lawn can lead to false conclusion(s).
Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning fromPtoQinvolves not simply a
determination thatQis sufficient forP, but also thatQis among the
most economical explanationsforP. Simplification and economy both call for that "leap"
of abduction.[1
0]

Abduction: Example from WFP

For example, suppose we hear words such as syringe- syringes; edit editor, etc. We
already know that most of the plural forms or noun-forms of words in English are
formed from their singular counter parts or verb counter parts. So, it would be
unsurprising to know that words such as dogs and player are formed likewise.
Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that syringes and editor are also
formed like that is reasonable (but note that Peirce did not remain convinced that a
single logical form covers all abduction);[9]however, some other process may have also
resulted in syringes and editor, e.g. borrowing. Moreover, abducing thatsyringes and
editor from the observation of dogs and player, etc. leads to false conclusion(s).
Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning fromPtoQinvolves not simply a
determination thatQis sufficient forP, but also thatQis among the
most economical explanationsforP. Simplification and economy both call for that "leap"
of abduction. However, simplification and economy in the case of these words may not be
of use because the process is not economic: dog-to-dogs and play-to-player is not
economical since it involves addition of a suffix s/-er. What is required is the inclusion
of dispositional suffixal additive cognition of these words and the resulting WFP by
ICCCSA. In the case of editor/ syringes, it is the suffixal clipping cognition. Hence
abduction fails in providing a principled account of WFPs. [1
0]

2. Dispositional Reality Reasoning

Transduction

Transduction - a term coined by me - is a process of reasoning

that leads to the inference of choices and disposition in

patterns:

There is disposition, if there is choice Or

There is choice, if there is disposition.

1 a. There is choice (in patterning), if there are different
patterns (N, if S) or

1 b. There are different patterns, if there is choice.

(S, if N)

2 a. There is disposition, if there is dispositional bias and

there is dispositional bias, if there is response bias;

2 b. There is choice , if there is response bias; and there is

response bias, if there is choice.

2. Dispositional Reality Reasoning

Transduction

Patterns are interpreted at a more abstract level by their analysis as

means (HOW) at the middle level or level around.

M2
overview: Identification
Top View : Observation

M1

M3

Mn

M4

Side View: Analysis

M7

M5

Bottom View: Interpretation

M6

[M1Mn are WFPs or sub-WFPs;

C-q-D as the cause;
circumference as
the linguistic realization
[trans = across; ducere duct = lead; leading across different structures to types
of patterns to different processes to arrive at an inference:

2. Dispositional Reality Reasoning

Transduction

1. If the patterns of a WFP are variable, then

they can be created by permutations of
variables.
2. If they can be created by permutations of
variables their choice is dispositional.
Corollary: Many types of a WFP as well as
many WFPs can be created by permutations of
variables.

In the next slide such transduction of mathematical,

spatiotemporalmaterial, and transformational
principles is outlined.

Transduction of English WFP Principles

Transduction
1. In word-formation processes, there are
different patterns intra-WFP as well as inter-WFP.
Therefore, there is choice in their formation.
Since there is choice in their formation, there is
response bias for the choice, which springs from
dispositional bias of the choice. Again,
dispositional bias underlies disposition and
springs from it. Hence choice springs from
disposition.
The challenge for the ka:rmik linguist is to
show that choice comes from disposition
from various levels of language.

Dispositional Discrete Permutation Principle

(of Bhuvaneswar)

When we live, we language the

world (in its experience) by
Limited Uses of Limited Means
within (Un)limited (open-ended)
Permutations.
Or simply
limited uses of limited means in
unlimited permutations
Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar

Ka:rmikoduction
Ka:rmikoduction is a kind of reasoning that leads to the inference of KPB through language.
Comprehensive induction, and transduction establish choice and disposition in the formation of language.
Ka;rmikoduction establishes the function of language.
1. If there is CCOA, then there is language
Or There is language, if there is C (C) OA.
2. If there is action, then there are results. Or

If there are results, then there is action.

3. If there are ROA, then there is experience. Or There are ROA, if there is experience. [Except Saints ]
If there is CCOA (by language), then there is the experience of the ROA. Hence, language is used as a tool
as a system as a resource as a means for KPB for ordinary humans by humans or saints.
Or, There is KPB, if there is CCOA (by language).
Therefore, language and living are I-I-I. this is in creation itself as a principle. This indirectly offers evidence
for Ka;rmik theory of Living.
Ka:rmikoduction has three parts: CI, Transduction, and Ka:rmikoduction.
CI leads to transduction. Transduction offers evidence for choice and indexes disposition in the
structuration of language. Ka:rmikoduction offers evidence of language as a means for KPB via
dispositional choice of language as a system, as a particular means.

Abduction, Induction, Deduction, Transduction, and Ka:rmikoduction constitute the basic

types of the LOGIC of LANGUAGE and need to be studied further in depth.

Ka:rmik Linguistics Programme has three sub-divisions:

1. Motivation for KPB of human beings: i. Physical, Mental, Dispositional, Experiential, Ka:rmik
Basis ;

ii. Desires, actions, and experience of ROA; and iii. Context

; 2. Motivation of language for performing action (CCOA) for the fulfillment of desires;

3. Motivation of Creation, Modification, and Transformation by Disposition

Motivation of Language as Means for CCOA and then KPB.

Ka:rmik-o-duction
Ka:rmik-o-duce is to multiply induce from empirical experience assertions
[which are refined by logical and scientific experience of the defects of under-extension,
over-extension, and impossibility and whet them against, if necessary,
spiritual(introspective) experiences ]
to arrive at causal explanations in terms of process (WHY: CAUSE), pattern (HOW:
TIME-PLACE-MANNER) and structure (WHAT: MATERIAL FORM) at the
highest level, to show that the linguistic realizations are constructed and used in a
context to CCOA for constructing ka:rmik reality via dispositional reality via
actional reality.

Ka:rmikoduction
is causal, radial
reasoning:

looking from multiple

angles, such as sensory
perceptive evidence,
inference, analogy, presence
and absence of a quality and
different types of reasoning
such as abduction,
induction, deduction, and
transduction,

and
experien
ce to
ascertain
a fact.

Ka:rmikoducing WFP Creation

Ka:rmikoduction
[leading through cause-effect experiential reasoning from different
angles as from the circumference (effect) to the centre (cause) via the
spokes (means) in a wheel and vice versa as possible] involves all-round
radial reasoning at the highest level:
looking at a phenomenon by induction-deduction-transduction.
[trans = across; ducere duct = lead; leading across different types of reasoning
such as induction, deduction, and abduction]
Let us take examples to illustrate these processes 1 : Affixation as Sub-WFP

Given that there are various kinds of affixation, and given that some
languages prefer some kinds of affixation and not others, we conclude that
affixation is a dispositionally creative sub-WFP formed by dispositionally
discrete permutation (DDP)of the contextual variables. Here, we have come to
the conclusion from the effects (observing many affixation processes) and
leading them through the spokes (their patterns) to the centre (the cause) as
dispositional creativity through a discrete permutational exploration of
contextual variables for the construction of ka:rmik reality (at the centre) via
dispositional reality (through the spokes) via actional reality (at the
circumference).

Illustration of KLT in WFPs

In the next section, affixation is taken
as an example to illustrate how
disposition GCSDMs this sub-wordformation process.

Affixation as Evidence for KLT

Procedure for KLT Analysis of Affixation

1. Data Collection: A number of words from different languages such as

2. Patterning and Structuring: The data has been analyzed (see slides 35-36),

3. Concepts and Principles: From an abstraction of concepts and principles

1. addition;
2. transformation;
3. deletion;
4. bifurcation by quotes

English, Telugu, Hebrew, Philippines, Arabic, Maltese, and Alabama have been
collected.
and from the analysis, we find that there are many affixation processes (11)
available across languages: 1. Prefixation; 2. Suffixation; 3. Semi-Suffixation; 4.
Infixation; 5. Circumfixation; 6. Interfixation; 7. Duplifixation; 8. Transfixation;
9. Simulfixation; 10. Suprafixation; 11. Disfixation. 12. Quotefixation (Recently,
this new affixation process by quotefix in written Telugu journalism has been
formed). In all 12 Affixation Sub-WFPs are observed.
from these affixation processes, we find three important principles involved in
these processes:

Concepts &
Principles

Affixation as Evidence for KLT 2

4. Systemic Network for Affixation
Prefixation
Suffixation
Circumfixation

Suffixation

Semi-Suffixation

Addition
Systemic Network
for Affixation (English)

Infixation

(Infixation)
Interfixation
(Transfixation)

Simulfixation
Transformation
Suprafixation
Disfixation
Quotefixation

Deletion
Truncation

Dispositional Conceptualization of the System as a

Network
In KLT, ka:rmik reality is a:nushangikally (the effect inheriting the cause in addition to its
own property) constructed through dispositional reality through actional reality:
Ka:rmik Reality
Dispositional Reality (+K.R)
Actional Reality (+D.R. +K.R.)
The actional reality that is construed is dispositionally construed as
dispositional actional reality which is further construed as
ka:rmik dispositional actional reality.
In the case of Affixation in English, the mathematical principles of addition, and
transformation only are chosen for affixation by dispositional cognition. What
it means is that the English people have not cognized other principles but only
these two and hence only these two principles are used so far from the US Action
via US Lingual Action.

5. Motivation of Affixation as a Ka:rmik Linguistic System

5. 1. Choice of Affixation as a WFP
Historically, Old, Middle, and Modern Englishes have been influenced
by French, Latin and Greek which opted for affixation as a WFP. Hence,
English might have the super-stratum effect of those languages.
5. 2. PEV in Modern English
If we observe how the affixation process in Mod. English has
expanded, we see direct evidence for dispositional creativity in the
cognition of these processes.
Many of these processes have been added to the main principle of
affixation by the Principle of Exploration of Variables. For example,
infixation is still not very productive; duplifixation entered English
recently via Hebrew;

Ka:rmikopoeisis 1:
Disposition

Ka:rmikopoeisis 2: Equations of
Action
(1)

Disposition
Desire
Effort
Action
Result
Experience

(2) Disposition
Dispositional Bias
Response Bias
Choice
Variation
Action
Result
Experience

Conduct of Action
Intuitive Understanding of a Phenomenon
Troubleshooting
Problem Solving Strategies/
Innovative Action
to EV
Solution

Go

WFP COGNEME COGNITION NETWORK

Network 3. Experiential Meaning Chakram:

a. Outer Chakram; b. Titled Inner Chakram

ICCCSA Network

N-w-N Diagram of Ka:rmik

Reality
A. R
CA. R
SCS. R
D. R
Cog. R

Holarchy of Ka:rmik Reality

Dispositional Reality (+

K. R)

Cognitive Reality [+ D.

R. (+ K. R)]

Socioculturalspiritual

Reality

[ + C. R. (+ D. R. (+ K.

R.))]
Ka:rmik Reality

Contextual Actional R.
[+SCS. R (+ C. R. + (D.

R. (+ K. R.)))]
Mental Action
Vocal Action

3/1/16

Actional Reality

[backwords is a new process in English;

blending is a recent phenomenon and is
productive; reduction processes such as
abbreviation, clipping, acronomy, and
initialism are all recent developments.
Let us take the case of backwords,
acronomy, duplifixation, and portmanteaus
to illustrate how language is created,
modified, and transformed by dispositional
GCSDM of these processes and their
instantiation in words

5. CONCLUSION
1. We have provided a linguistic motivation of
WFPs in English in the Formal, Functional,
Cognitive, and Ka:rmik Linguistic Models.
2. The Analysis shows evidence for
Exploration of Variables, Networks-withinNetworks.
3. WFP are created in an Ka:rmikopoeitic
Structure.

Thank you!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR

KIND ATTENTION!

Procedure of Motivation of
KLT

Procedure

1. 2. KLT Procedure

It consists of three divisions: 1. Pre-Language; 2. At Language; 3. Post-Language

In practice, KLT is applied by starting with 2. At Language Stage with a small review of
Approaches to Living as follows in 4 stages and then Post-language at the 5 th Stage. Within the 5th
Stage, the first stage Pre-Language is discussed.
0. Approaches to Living: 1. Different Approaches; 2. KA:RMIK LIVING APPROACH: 1.
Ka:rmik Living Programme; 2. The Game of Karmaphalabho:gam (GKPB)
1. first, by data collection :
(which gives us the WHAT of language in question for analysis);
2. second, patterning and structuring the data into clearly identifiable categories, types, and
classes (which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Organization);

3. third, discovering concepts and principles from the patterned and structured data
(which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Principles for Organization);
4. fourth, developing systemic choice networks for the system
(which gives the HOW of language in terms of its Dispositional Conceptualization); and

5. fifth, motivating systemic choices from disposition and building up the language as a
dispositional sociocognitive linguistic system

created and used for the construction of ka:rmik reality via dispositional reality via
actional reality.