3) Dalaala Flashcards
Dalaala is…
the relationship between 2 things:
One of them is الدّال (the indicator), the other is المدلول (indicated), and the process of indication is known as (الدلالة).
1) Definition of Qutb al Din Raazi
هي كون الشي ء بحالة يلزِمَ من العلم بهِ العلم بشي ء آخر
The KNOWLEDGE of (the existence of) a شيء (‘THING’ i.e. the الدّال)) in a certain way, such that KNOWING IT GIVES KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING ELSE (i.e. the مدلول - MAHMOOL).
2) Definition of Muzaffer:
Muzaffer refers to existence explicitly:
هي كون الشي ء بحالة إذا علمت بوجوده إنتقال ذهنك إلى وجود شي ء آخر
The knowledge of a thing’ in such a way that knowledge of its existence causes the mind to infer the existence of something else
Fadhli OBJECTS: This is ontological relationship - there regardless of our convictions /the law / social agreements / social contract. E.g. smoke and fire - existsential relationship between them.
BUT what about words and their meanings!! E.g. foreign language. Therefore this definition is not comprehensive!! Only includes a particular type of indication - existential/ontological indication (الدلالة التكوينية). BUT does NOT include postulated indication / legislated indication (الدلالة الوضعية / التشريع). (legislated by society - social contract!)
Muzaffer ENG: Movement of the mind from one thing only occurs through a cause. This cause is the firm bond existing between two things in the mind. The cause of this relationship is knowledge of the necessary relationship between these two things outside of the mind. It does not matter whether this association is essential, or natural, or has been determined by some particular person
3) Definition of Fadhli
Definition of Fadhli: (هي العلاقة بين الشيئين الذين يدل أحدهما على الآخر) - “Its a type of relationship between 2 things, one of which indicates the other”
This is a wider definition as, unlike in the previous definitions:
- Includes POSTULATAED indication (الدلالة الوضعية) -so no matter if its a type of co-relationship (التلازم - CAUSAL - see ->) or co-existence (الاِقتران / تقارن- non-causal, like words and their meanings - they co-exist)). BUT the definition of Muzaffer depends on a causal relationship (N.B. التلازم refers to a relationship between a cause and effect (which is solely what they mean in the first definition), or 2 effects of the same cause)). - There is no mention of knowledge (علم), so no matter whether we know them or not - There is no mention of the movement of the mind from one to another (إنتقال ذهنك); all we have is the potentiality to create this movement. - There is no mention of existence (وجود) SO This definition is more OBJECTIVE as it is talking about the external world, whereas the first is more subjective (knowledge, mind, movement, etc).
Dr F: Criticism - not a true definition, as its circular… we say Dalaala is a relationship between 2 things, where one indicates (يدل) the other. Its just a ‘verbal definition’.
Divisions of Dalaala
1) Rational Significaiton - العقلية REASON DICTATES THE RELATIONSHIP / FACTUAL / CO-EXISTENCE / CAUSE AND EFFECT. Verbal and Non-Verbal
2) Natural Signification- الطبعِيّة
RELATIONSHIP THERE DUE TO REQUIREMENTS OF NATURE / REASON ALONE CAN’T DISCOVER WITHOUT INVESTIGATION or EXPERIENCE, MAY VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON. Verbal and Non-Verbal
3) Postulated Signification - الوضعيّة
or Legislated / contsructive / (Formulative SS)
SOCIAL CONTRACT
Verbal and Non-Verbal, but unlike the other two, here it makes sense!
1) Rational Significaiton - العقلية REASON DICTATES THE RELATIONSHIP / FACTUAL / CO-EXISTENCE / CAUSE AND EFFECT.
- Should be factual relationship between the daal and madlool (regardless of human activities - i.e. all we do is discover).
- Must be a necessary co-existence, i.e. a co-relation between 2 things (function of reason is just to discover).
- One of the factors implies the other…cause & effect - can’t be separated. Muzaffer’s definition refers primarily to this type.
Muzaffer ENG: says this occurs when there is an essential relationship between the indicator and the indicated in terms of their external existence. E.g. cause and effect; if a human knows that the morning light of the sun is the effect of the sun’s rising, and he sees the light on a wall, his mind will be conveyed to the rising of the sun without any doubt.
2 types (but F agrees don’t make sense, so ‘drop’)
Verbal اللفظية (verbal; relationship between hearing someone speaking from behind the door and knowing that someone is behind the door). NOT the meaning of the words, but the mere existence of a person, the knowledge of which we get from their TALKING. Dr F says rubbish separation - verbal is just one type of indication - what about clapping etc? they fall into non-verbal.
SS says “its verbal because the words of the speaker signifies existence of a speaker speaking, and its rational because reason indicates that all speech is required to emanate from a speaker.
Non-verbal غير اللفظية (non-verbal; e.g. smoke and fire).
2) Natural Signification- الطبعِيّة
RELATIONSHIP THERE DUE TO REQUIREMENTS OF NATURE / REASON ALONE CAN’T DISCOVER WITHOUT INVESTIGATION or EXPERIENCE, MAY VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON
A relationship which is there between Daal and Madlool, due to the requirements of their nature (‘natural’) - e.g. something that the nature of human beings would necessitate.
- Its not like cause and effect, rather it can vary from one person to another..
- Reason alone not able to discover the relationship without investigation (e.g. medical investigation… always inductive). Just knowing the meaning of blood and fever isn’t enough. Whereas in the rational signification you just need to know meaning of speech and speaker).
Muzzaffer ENG: e.g. The nature of people would indicate that the vocal expression “Agh!” comes when people are in pain. If a person is aware of such connections, then his mind will be conveyed from one of the two necessary terms to another. Whenever someone hears someone else say “Agh!,” then their mind is conveyed to the person making this sound, and they know that this person is in pain.
2 types (again seems silly division)
Verbal اللفظية e.g. when you are in pain you say ouch - the nature of man indicates that when he is in pain, he will make such a noise, and its verbal as its from the mouth
Non-verbal غير اللفظية e.g. if you have a fever, blood goes faster…or if you scared complexion may go yellow…
3) Postulated Signification - الوضعيّة
or Legislated / contsructive / (Formulative SS)
SOCIAL CONTRACT
- The basis of such signification is postulation - this requires ‘social contract’, so that we can go from sign to its meaning!
2 types - here F agrees
Verbal - e.g.the name Ali (WORDS = linguistic signficiation)
The الدلالة اللفظيّة has 2 major elements - words & meanings!
The relationship between them not ontological/metaphysical/causal. Rather, created by kind of human activity (وضعة or ‘jahl’* or تشريع)
THIS IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LOGICAL DISCUSSION: الدلالة الوضعيّة اللفظيّة - Because this is what we rely on to make arguments or say something - we are reliant on language!! i.e. only this dalala - not the other 2! (continued wk 4)
Non-verbal - e.g. the signification of signs/gestures indicating their intended meaning, such as traffic lights, scientific symbols, sign language (OTHER SIGNS)
So what’s our focus?? Which type of Dalaala??
…So our focus is الدلالة الوضعيّة اللفظيّة - for short call it الدلالة اللفظيّة
= a kind of “relationship which is there between every word and its meaning, and that relationship is created by postulation”: “العلقة القائمة بين اللفظو معناه بسبب وضع اللفظ للمعني” p40
BUT mere postulation doesn’t create such a relationship - 2 further conditions:
i) That postulation must be accepted by majority of members of that linguistic community
ii) Everyone has to be exposed to that word and meaning several times so as to internalise that relationship.
THEN everyone may move from hearing the word to the meaning.
3 Types of الدلالة للفظيّة - (remember this is part of Wadhiyya)
1) الدلالة المُطابِقيَّة
MUTAABIQIYYA - ENTIRE MEANING (THE WHOLE)
(BOOK AS BOOK)
2) الدلالة التَضَمُّنِيَّة
TAZAMMUNIYYA - PART OF THE WHOLE
(BOOK AS PAPER)
3) الدلالة الإِلْتِزامِيَّة (Iltizaam means being together).
ILTIZAAMIYYA - SOMETHING DIFFERENT
(INK-WELL AS PEN); CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A & B, BUT DIFFERENT IN ESSENCE.
1) CORRESPONDENCE الدلالة المُطابِقيَّة
MUTAABIQIYYA - ENTIRE MEANING (THE WHOLE)
(BOOK AS BOOK)
Defined as الدلالة اللفظ على تمام المعنى الذي وضع له (but Fadhli’s discussion is incorrect - the below is from Muzaffer & Doc F - correct)
Corresponding relationship between الدال and مدلول - if we have a complex meaning, and there’s a word that indicates that complex meaning in its totality.
SO word refers to ENTIRE meaning - i.e. the WHOLE (which includes its parts!)
Muzaffer: An example would be the statement “book,” which would include all of its pages and engravings, and its cover. Another example would be using the vocal expression “human being” to indicate upon the human being in his entirety, as a rational animal. We call such a statement “complete” because of the perfect accordance between the vocal expression and the meaning.
2) IMPLICATION الدلالة التَضَمُّنِيَّة
TAZAMMUNIYYA - PART OF THE WHOLE
(BOOK AS PAPER)
Defined as الدلالة اللفظ على جزء المعنى الذي وضع له (but Fadhli’s discussion is incorrect - the below is from Muzaffer & Doc F - correct)
Fadhli says use word to refer to part of meaning, which is a kind of figurative useage. BUT F says this is incorrect - all these types of signification are REAL! We use the words in their REAL meaning! Not in another meaning, but indirectly it indicates something else.
This is when you refer to a PART of a WHOLE. So the مدلول has > 1 part, but we are only referring to some part(s) of it
Muzaffer: This kind of statement indicates upon part of the meaning of something, and this meaning is part of a wider, more comprehensive meaning. An example of this would be to use the statement “book” to refer only to its paper, or only to its cover. Or if one uses the phrases human being, but only meaning the human being as an animal, or as a rational (but not both), and so forth. And so if you buy a book, the seller will know that the cover is included in it; but if you only wanted the paper, the seller would argue with you that the signification of the vocal expression “book” includes the cover. We call this “implied” indication. It is derived from direct signification, since signifying a part is subsidiary to signifying a whole.
3) NECESSITATED الدلالة الإِلْتِزامِيَّة (Iltizaam means being together).
ILTIZAAMIYYA - SOMETHING DIFFERENT
(INK-WELL AS PEN); CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A & B, BUT DIFFERENT IN ESSENCE.
Defined as الدلالة اللفظ على المعنى ملازم للمعنى المَوضوع له (but Fadhli’s discussion is incorrect - the below is from Muzaffer & Doc F - correct)
Again Fadhli says figurative, Dr F disagrees. Fadhli says if call someone “Hatim” to refer to meaning of generosity which is associated with “Hatim Tai”. We say someone is generous in 2 ways, one REAL (Mutaabiqiyya - just say he is Generous), one FIGURATIVE (Say he is Haatim which then gives the meaning of generosity; its not part of its meaning at all - its Itizaamiya). Dr F says that when call someone Haatim, we intend to refer to generosity, BUT linguistic part of our activity is not Iltizaamiya - because, we use the word Haatim is used to give the meaning of Haatim not generous. In figurative useage, u borrow a meaning from its real example, to something which isn’t a real example of that meaning. BUT what we have here is a kind of Mutaabiqiyya which is linked to Iltizaamiya!
When we say X is Haatim, we want audience to imagine Generosity through meaning of Haatim - so we have 2 meanings (madlool) and 1 sentence (daal). So meaning of Haatim is Mutaabiqiyya (first madlool = mutaabiqiyya), and meaning of Generoisty (second madlool = iltizaamiya). Point here is that Iltizaamiyya always follows Mutaabiqiyya - this is beauty of figurative speech! Same with tazammuniyya - it depends on mutaabiqiyya first! HENCE THE SECOND 2 TYPES OF DALAALA ARE NOT INDPENDENT - THEY BOTH DEPENDENT ON MUTAABIQIYYA ACCORDING TO DR F!
Here, a person would use a vocal expression to indicate upon a meaning DIFFERENT from the meaning actually determined expression; there is a CLOSE RELATIONSHIP between the two [meanings], but the second meaning is nonetheless external to essence of the first meaning. SO the word used to refer to the primary meaning, indrectly indicates the associated meaning! E.g. I always see A & B together…see A alone, mind thinks of B automatically because of the mental association in the mind between A & B. So here we are referring to something associated to the مدلول
Muzaffer: An example would be using the word “inkwell” to refer to a pen. If someone seeks an inkwell from, and did not clearly say a pen, then you would come and bring him an inkwell and nothing else, this person might chastise you saying that seeking an inkwell is sufficient for one to understand that one was, in fact, seeking a pen as well. We call this forced indication. This type of signification is also derived from direct signification, because the signification of something which is foreign to the actual meaning under discussions will come only after indication upon the actual meaning.
Muzaffer also says that for necessitated signification is that the necessary relationship between meaning of the vocal expression and the meaning of the external meaning be found in the mind (and it must also be obvious - no intermediate term in the mind - from term to meaning direct
Benefits of this Discussion (Dalaala)
Benefits of this Discussion (فائدة البحث)
To avoid logical mistakes, need to distinguish between different types of Dalaala. There are 5 Lingusitic rules
1) For AUDIENCE: SO IF QARINA FOLLOW IT
If have external evidence (قرينة - something not part of the sentence - e.g. context, body language, the other sentences) to tell us which type of indication it is, we must follow that Qareenah.
2) - for AUDIENCE: IF NO QARINA, THEN ITS MUTAABIQIYYA
Then we have to say the signification is Mutaabiqiyya (Dr F - “the non-existence of Qarinah is a type of Qarinah).
3) for AUTHOR - FOR TAZAMMUNIYA MUST RELY ON QARINA
If wants to refer to a word to refer to part of word (Tazammuniyya) must rely on Qarinah - add something in order to not mislead the audience.
4) for AUTHOR -FOR ILTIZAAMIYA MUST RELY ON QARINA
If wants to refer to a word to refer to external associated meaning (Iltizaamiya), must rely on Qarinah - add something in order to not mislead the audience.
E.g. If I say “Hassan is generous”, and he really is, then not figurative usage - as i really mean Hassan and Generous. This is Mutaabiqiyya - nothing else, hence don’t need to add anything.
BUT if say “Hassan is Haatim” here need to rely on Qarinah - as its not the real meaning that I intend, but trying to indicate he is generous; in this case Qarinah may be the audience’s background knowledge which the author is referring to. One good Qarinah is that its a popular ‘figurative meaning’; another Qarinah is the historical awareness that Haatim is already dead! So must be intending something else.
5) IF IN DOUBT ABOUT INTENTION, ASSUME ITS MUTAABIQIYYA
If we are in DOUBT about real intention fo speaker (either no Qarimah or complicated Qarinah), then refer to Linguistic Principles, and say that his intention is Mutaabiqi
