language cultural relativism-tiruvalluvar

8/2/2019 Language Cultural Relativism-Tiruvalluvar

1/17

If Whorf Had Known Tiruvalluvar? Universalism and Cultural Relativism in a Famous Work

of Ancient Tamil LiteratureAuthor(s): Gabriella Eichinger Ferro-LuzziReviewed work(s):Source: Anthropos, Bd. 87, H. 4./6. (1992), pp. 391-406Published by: Anthropos InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40462652 .

Accessed: 04/03/2012 11:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Anthropos Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnthropos.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthroposinsthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40462652?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40462652?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthroposinst


2/17

Anthropos7.1992: 91-406

IfWhorf ad Known iruvalluvar?UniversalismndCultural elativismna FamousWork fAncient amilLiteratureGabriella ichingererro-LuzziAbstract. On thebasisof the Tirukkural"yTiruvalluvarthe uthor ishes odemonstratehat ven heweakversionof theWhorfianypothesisas to be qualified:hatanguageinfluenceshoughtnly nrare ndunpredictableases. Thefirstart f the rticle eals with niversalismnd culturalrelativismndependentf anguage.hesecond art xaminesthe amil oet's imiles ndmetaphorsswell s the houghtslinkedhroughhyme.nly tinyminorityffigurativexpres-sions reate roblemsor ross-culturalnderstandingnd nonlybout % of he erses hymerdoublemeaningeems oinspirewhat s said. [India, Tamil, Tirukkural," niversalism,cultural elativism]Gabriella ichinger erro-Luzzi, r.phil nGeographyndAnthropology1968, Rome);shehas donerepeatedlyield-workn ndia;her esearchnterestsnclude indu itualndmythology,amilhumour,nd Tamilcultureeenthroughmodernamil iterature;shetaughtamil ulturend an-guage t theUniversitiesf Venice ndBologna nd s nowteachingn the amesubject t theUniversityf Rome.Herpublicationsnclude: he Polythetic-Prototypeonceptof Caste (Anthropos986); Humourn a Tamil Author'sPopular omediesAnthropos988);ThePolythetic-PrototypeApproachoHinduismin:G.D. SontheimerndH. Kulke[eds.]:Hinduism econsidered989);TamilJokes ndthePolythetic-PrototypepproachoHumorHumor 990);seealsoReferencesited.

IntroductionThe strong ersion f theWhorfianypothesis(1967) (orSapir-WhorfianypothesisinceSapir[1929:209]voiced imilardeas omewhatarlier)has beendefinitelybandoned.t held that an-guage etermineshoughtnd hatur ogicvariesaccordingothe anguagewe speak.Thedemiseof the trongorm fthehypothesiswesmuchto Chomsky1975; Hacking1980: 47-50) whopropoundshe existence f innatedeas and aninnate niversalrammarustas categoricallysWhorf ormulatedomeof his claims.Scholarswhocontinueodefendr revaluateWhorfointout hat is work lsocontains weakhypothesis"that he tructuresfdifferentanguageso exertsome nfluencen the hinkingndcategorization

ofspeakers"Robins 976:100)or that a world-viewmanifestedhroughanguagewillhavebothsomeaspects hat ranscendhe inguisticystemand someaspects hat re bound o the inguisticsystem"Mathiot 979:167).1The mainpurpose f thepresent tudys todemonstratehat ven the weakversion f theWhorfianypothesisas to beconsiderablyuali-fied, .e.,thatanguagenfluenceshoughtnly nrare ndunpredictableases.With heexceptionof attemptso link colourmemorynd colourvocabularyLucyandShweder 979)proponentsof the weakhypothesissually imit hemselvesto express eneral onvictionsike those uotedabove.To partly ill hegapofanalyticaltudieson thesubject shall test he weak version flinguisticelativismn thebasis of "Tirukkural"byTiruvalluvar.The TamilpoetTiruvalluvarrobablyived nthe ifthr ixthenturyfour ra Zvelebil 973:155).His work onsists f 1330 two-lineersesgroupednto 30chaptersividednto hree arts.Thefirstwoparts,On Virtue"nd OnWealth,"arefamous or heir idactic tatementsore rlessacceptableopeople heworld ver. hethirdpart, On Love,"dispenseswithmoral eachingsandexpoundswidely hared eelings. iven heuniversalppealofthework tmighte objectedthatmytest ase is heavily iasedtowards ni-versalism. f course, hevery xistence f the"Tirukkural"rittenn a language ifferentromstandardndo-Europeanndderivedrom cultureseparated rom s by about 1500 years houldbe inconveniento staunchulturalelativists.ormypurpose, owever,shall implyakeTiruval-luvar' universalmessageforgrantedndrath-er analyse omeaspects fhispoetic anguage:his similes ndmetaphorsn theone hand, hethoughtse oins througharious orms frhymeon the ther.Sinceproponentsf the weak version f the1 At he ime fwriting,race 987was not vailable ome.


3/17

392 Gabriellaichingererro-LuzziWhorfianypothesislaimthat he anguagewespeakmay nfluencehewayweperceive hings(Miller ndMcNeill1969:734; Casti1989:224),the xistencef imilarayings,imiles,ndmeta-phorsnwidely ifferentanguageshould eableto qualifyhis laim.Tiruvalluvarses standardTamil ayings ndfigurativexpressionsut hecertainlylso adds variationsnd inventionsfhisown.No matter hetherisfiguresfspeechhavebeencoined ollectivelyrpersonally,heyinforms about hepoet'sassociations f ideasconceivedn an ancient ulture nd a non-Indo-Europeananguage. imilaritiesetween iruval-luvar' associationsf deas and ourownshouldsupportniversalism,ifferenceshould upportculturalelativism.Otherroponentsf heweakWhorfianypoth-esis hold hatanguages acilitateertainatternsofthoughtDenny1979:97). Rhymedralliter-ativebinaryonjunctionsn the Tamil anguageand therhymesreated ythepoethimselfrelinguisticatterns.hey hould end hemselvesotestinghisnterpretationf theweakhypothesis.The essaywillbe divided nto woparts. npart I shalldealwith niversalismndculturalrelativismndependentf language n the "Ti-rukkural."n part I shall xamine niversalismand ulturalelativismnTiruvalluvar'poetican-guage.Enthusiasmor hemoralheight fTiruvallu-var' teachingsndtheir niversalraise ave edscholars odisregardhefact hat iswork s alsoa mine f nformationnTamil nd ndian ulture.Bydrawingttentionothis eglectedulture-spe-cific spect fthe Tirukkural,"npart ,1pursuea furtherurpose:o show hat ven he nfluenceofculturengeneral,ndependentf anguage nthepoet's hought,s lessthanmight e expectedgiven he xotic aturend ntiquityfhis ulture.1. TheContent fthe"Tirukkural"a) Tiruvalluvar'sniversal essageFor thebenefitf non-Indianistsshallbrieflysummarizehe niversal essage f he Tirukkur-al."Byuniversalmean ross-culturalccurrence;I do notwant o imply hat he dea in questionmust e foundnall culturesr must e acceptedbyall individuals ithin culture.Thefirstart fthe Tirukkural,"OnVirtue,"hastwosubsections:OnDomesticVirtues" nd"On AsceticVirtues." n the formerhepoet,amongstther hings,eals with he deals of a

goodwife nd ntelligenthildren, ith ffectionandhospitality.nthe atter epraises ompassion,penance,ruthfulness,onviolence,tc.Inthe econd art fhiswork,OnWealth,"i-ruvalluvarpeaks fthedesirablendundesirablequalitiesf heking,heminister,nd he ubjects.He recommendsearningndbenign uleto theking, loquence nd clevernesso theminister;he also stressesheneed of fortificationsnd astrongrmy.With egardo a perfectocial ifehe glorifiesriendship,onour,ourtesy,amilyspirit,tc. n the hird art f his work hepoetdescribesspects fpremaritalndconjugalove.The vastmajorityf Tiruvalluvar'maximsshow ound ommon enseandpragmaticalth-ics. In rare ases common ensedegeneratesntobanalitys when e stateshat nlesstrains herewillbe nogreen rasscouplet 6)and hat he uf-feringalledpovertyausesmany therufferings(1055).2Of course, ven such banal statementsarerenderedleasinghroughtylistic eans. arfromare, owever,remaximsevealing isdom- "lofty isdom"nZvelebil'swords1973:155).Amonghese count he bservationhatufferingchangeswith ne's attitudeo it (622) and thatthere s no need to feeldeep remorse bout awrongction; t s enough ot orepeatt 655).The latterdeanever eems o have occurredoDostoyevski'seroes.Not all of Tiruvalluvar'wise maxims recouched n didactic erms,omepoint utpsy-chological ruthsn a pleasingwaysuch as thefollowing:ike ufferingakes nemore ttachedto ife o a loss makes hegamblermore ttachedtothe ice 940). nthe hirdart f he Tirukkur-al" the ovingwife,whohasreason ocomplainaboutherhusband, ust dmithatust s shenomore ees thepencilwhen hepaints er yes osheno more ees herhusband's aults hen e snear 1285).In addition ocommonense nd keenobser-vation heres anothereason or heuniversalityofTiruvalluvar'messages. hepoetdeliberately,I think, referso remain n the evel of gen-erality otonly n theheadings f his chaptersbutfrequentlyntheverses s well.For nstance,thougherepeatedlyefersoreligionnd ocietyhe eaveshiscastemembershipndreligiousffil-iationndeterminate.hese acts avegiven ise omuch peculation.hepresent-dayamils end oassign im oSaivism.While heres noevidence2 I haverenderedhemeaningf someverses nmyownwords; ll rhymedranslationsrebyBalasubramaniam1962.

Anthropos7.1992


4/17

If Whorf adKnown iruvalluvar? 393for his pecificdentificationhe uggestionhathemayhavebeen Jain ecausehepraises ege-tarianismnduses ome ypicallyainxpressions(Zvelebil1973: 157) seems o meunconvincing.Tiruvalluvaroubtlesslynew he Jaindoctrine,which admany dherentsn South ndia nthefirst illenniumf our ra. But hold tunlikelythat n atheistic ainwouldbeginhis workwiththe raise fgod chapter) andwould epeatedlymentionindu ods ncludingcreatorod 377,1062)but eferoa JainArhatnly bliquely.The total ack of historicalata on thepoet'sperson as stimulatedhe reationfmore r essplausibleegendsbouthis castemembership:orinstance,e is said tohave beena weaver r anannouncerhodrummedut heking'smessages.As suggestedyThurston1909/VI: 2) long go,the clue provided yhis nameshouldbe takenseriously.o this aytheValluvarsrea priestlysubdivisionftheParaiyan ntouchables.incetheParaiyansid not lways ank s low as theydo now,their riests robably elonged o themore ultivated embersf ncientamil ociety.Thepoetmay rmaynothavebeen priestt aroyal ourt ut think e certainly as a panditparticipatingnroyalssemblies. isextraordinarypraiseof knowledgend rhetoricalkill eaveslittle oubt hat ebelongedothis earnedlass.As recentlyointed utbythe Tamil cholarKulandaisamy1989:48-61),Tiruvalluvarreferstoremainnthe evelofgeneralitynmany asesbesides eligionndcaste. or nstance,espeaksabout anguagewithout entioninghenameofany languagenotevenhis motherongue.Hespeaksaboutthekingand thecountry ithoutmentioninghe nameof anyruler, ynasty,rrealm. hegeneralityfhismaxims ndoubtedlyfacilitatesheir niversalcceptability.b) Tamil ulturen the Tirukkural"Bydrawingttentiono some ulture-specificea-turesfthe Tirukkural"wish o show hat hesedo notprevent ost f thepoet'smessages rombeinguniversal. he fewcases which eemtosupporthe ulturalelativismfhisthinkingreofminormportanceith espectohisuniversallyacceptabledeas.1) BeliefsFour f the130chaptersf thework rededicat-ed to beliefs ypical fpan-Indianulture.hese

arechap. on "TheGreatnessf theRenouncer,"chap. 5 on"Renunciation,"hap. 7 on "The Ex-tirpationfDesire," ndchap. 8 on "Karma rDestiny"l). Belief nrebirthftheform eter-minedby one's pastandpresent eedsappearsat several oints fthework, or nstancenthefollowingerse:The one whobears he alanquinandhewhorides hereinRuleout heneed or xplainingthe irtue's ays nd in (37,transi.alasubramaniam)In thechapterntitled /, owever, iruvalluvarseems o havehad nmindmpersonalestinyndeventhewillofgod 377) ratherhan henotionof karma.3The poet takes the undesirabilityf rebirthforgrantedndrepeatedlyoints ut thewaytoreachiberationy ubjugatinghe enses24) andgiving p thevery deas of I and mine 345).Bycalling hese eliefs ulture-specificdo not,ofcourse,meanthat hey re found nly n In-dia. Through uddhism,nparticular,hey avecrossedhebordersf ndia;but hey onot ropup sporadicallynvarious arts f theworld.Sincepenance s also practisedyChristiansI didnot ount hapter7,on"Penance,"mongwhollyulture-specificnes;but he eliefnmag-icalpowerscquiredhroughusteritiessunique-ly Indian, omyknowledge.n the Tirukkural"themagical owers f therenouncernclude e-featingeath269) anddestroyingnemies264).The lastmentionederse s one of thefew nwhichhe oet epartsrom isusualnonviolence.It maybe interestingo learn hathe condemnshypocrisychap. 8) in the section On AsceticVirtues." here s goodreasonfor his ssocia-tionof ideas. False asceticshavebeen commonthroughoutndianhistory. esides,Tiruvalluvarhimself ecommendso spiesto disguise hem-selves s ascetics586).

Austerityn the ndianmindneed notbe re-strictedoreligiousoncerns;tratherefersoanyformfself-control.devotedndfaithfulifeis appreciatedheworld verbutonly n Indiathewife whoworships er husbandikea godcancommandain, ccordingo oneof themostfamous ersesof the "Tirukkural"55). A justrulers similarlyelieved ohavemagical owersover ain ndcrops545),while ruler orgettinghis duties o hissubjectsausesthe ows togive3 Also modernamils reablesimultaneouslyo believenfate, od, ndkarmaEichingererro-Luzzi983: 88f.).

Anthropos7.1992


5/17

394 Gabriellaichingererro-Luzzilessmilk nd the Brahminso forgethe sacredscriptures560).ThoughTiruvalluvaroes notspeakof wor-shippingnyparticularodhe mentionseveralHindudeities uch s theking f thegods ndra(25, 899),Visnu 1103), thegoddess f fortuneLaksmi84, 179,910) as well as her lder ister,thegoddess fmisfortune617, 936),thegodofdeath 269, 326), the demonRhu (1146), andtheenchantingemonessAnanku1081). Thereare also impliciteferenceso themyth f Vis-nu' dwarf vatar Vmana 610) and to Sivaas Nlakantha,hedrinkerfpoison 580). Theironic emarkhat hegodsare ikebase humansbecause hey o what hey lease 1073)seems oreflecthe ulture-specificabit ftakingibertieswithhe ods.Thisnonchalantttitudeowardshedivine, hich oesnot xclude eepreligiosity,sfound o thisday nreligious umourEichingerFerro-Luzzi990a:95-111).2) Rites nd CustomsListeningo a teachers themost ommon ormof learningll overtheworld, uttheprestigeenjoyed ythe ndian uru ar xceeds hat ftheteacher lsewhere.n the haptern"ListeningotheLearned" hepoetstressesheculture-specif-ic importancettributedo thisform flearningcomparingt to an equallyculture-specificite;thosewhoenjoy hebenefitfteaching ywordof mouthliterally,ear-food"),estates,re ikethegods iving n foodpourednto he acrificialfire412).In a few erses iruvalluvarresentsimselfsa socio-religiousritic r reformer. henhe as-sertshat ot atingmeats betterhan erforminga thousandacrificesnto hefire259) he makeshimselfhe pokesmanfpost-Vedicinduism.In a somewhatronicverse he refers o thepractice f erecting ero tones.He advises heenemies ot oopposehis king's) eneral ecausemanywhodid so nowstand s stones771).Furthermore,iruvalluvarives nformationnclothes nd ornaments orn t his time.WhiletheTamilherono onger uts nwarrior'snklets(777) theTamilwoman'soy inadorningerselfwith avishornamentsn thepoemcontinuesothisdayandgreatlyutdoeswhat s commonnthemodernWest.The most curiousTamil customrepeatedlymentionednthe oem1132,1135) s a horselikestructureade fdry almyraeaves matai). hescorned overusedto mounttnaked ndhave

himselfhus raggedhroughhe illage.Withhisdesperateesturef self-abasementndself-tor-ture ehoped o nduce isbeloved omarryim.Thematai eems obe a uniquelyamil ersion fthepan-Indianrustnthe fficacyf self-torture.Just s manymythologicaleroes ucceededncoercinghegodstogranthem hedesired oonby subjectinghemselveso cruel usteritiesgod-dessParvat,ornstance,erformedusteritiesowinSiva forhusband) o the unfortunateamillover fthepasthoped oblackmail is belovedmentallyogrant imwhat e desired.3) ValuesPeopleall over theworldvalue thefamily,utthe mportanceiven o thefamily, ore xactlyto the extended amily,n the"Tirukkural"asno parallel n modernWestern ulture. iruval-luvar' convictionhat personwithoutelativescannot e trusted506) is validto thisday. na modern amil omedy eopleevenobject o aprospectiveroom ecause he temporarilyiveson his own Marina1981: 112).Thisthoughtsclearly eterminedyculturend wouldnotfinduniversalpproval.Hospitalityndgenerosityreappreciatedv-erywhereut heir egree aries reatly.iruval-luvar ees the nly eason or ccumulatingealthin redistributingt and solidly inksgenerosityto fame.He thus dvocateswhat nthropologistshave alled onspicuousonsumption.otlach-likecelebrationsrefoundnmanyraditionalommu-nities ut arelyn modernWesternocieties. hisparticularalue, herefore,s cross-culturalnlyna certainpoch. he same pplies o what he oethas to sayabout he senseof shame. n moderntimes he ense f shame as notbeendiscreditedbut t has certainlyost much f its ustre. ewpeoplemaynowagreewith hemaxim:The food nd lothingnd he est ormankindre he ameThespecificeaturef the oodmen s theirense f hame(1012)

Thepraise fknowledgendoratoryasnoth-ing fthe nusual,utTiruvalluvar'emphasisnknowledgendrhetorics exceptional. e treatslearningnd its conversen ten chapters20,40, 41, 42, 43, 65, 72, 73, 84, 85) thusmakingthem he inglemost requentubject fhiswork.His glorificationf rhetoricas obvious arallelsamong heancientGreeks nd Romansbut notamong ll communitiesf the world.Given hepoet'shigh steem orvirtueomeof his state-Anthropos7.1992


6/17

If WhorfHad Known Tiruvalluvar? 395mentsbout kilful ndmeaningfulpeech eemstrange.or nstance,e equates speaker's lipof he onguenthe ssemblyf he earned ithslipfromhe ath fvirtue716)and ssertshattis bettero offendhanpeakuselesswords192).Thesemaxims,whichhardly ind niversalp-proval,ause he uspicionhathe oetmay peakas "Ciceroprodomosua,"forhimself nd hispeers.So far havegiven ome xamples f Tiruval-luvar' valuesspecific o his culture r at leastparticularlymphasizedn it. Butthe Tirukkur-al" also containsulture-specificbhorrences.orinstance,runkennessnd he xcessive onsump-tion of alcoholare appreciatedn fewcommu-nities, utfewpeoplealso agreewith heequa-tion fdrinkinglcohol ndtaking oison 926).Thehenpeckedusbands a universalarget fridicule; iruvalluvar'condemnationf suchaman chap. 1), however,oesbeyond heusualcriticism.henpeckedusband,ccordingohim,cannot e virtuous,elpful,ndwise. Herewehave causalreasoninghat ounds lausiblenlyin his culture.4) Classificationsnd ConventionsThefirstndmost atentulture-specificlassifi-cationnthe Tirukkural"rethepan-Indianourpurposesf ife:virtuedharma), ealthartha),love kma),nd iberationmoksa),hree fwhichthepoetdiscussesn the hree arts f hiswork.The omissionf thefourths probablyue totheprimarilyragmaticrientationfhis work ndthe argely ondiscursiveharacterf iberation.Under heheading f "Medicine" chap. 5)Tiruvalluvarisely efrainsromrescribingpe-cific cureswhichwouldalmost ertainlyavedeprivedis statementsf their niversalalidity.He rather oncentratesn moderationn eating.The veryemphasis n food in six of thetenverses f thechapter,owever,eemsto reflecttheyurvedicpan-Indianystem f medicine)view that nyailmentan be cured rpreventedby the choiceof theappropriateood.Tiruval-luvarfurthermoreints t theAyurvedicriadicclassificationf humoursnair,bile, ndphlegmwhen esays hatny xcessor ackof the hree,startingith ir, ausesdisease 941).Thismedi-calclassificationecalls,f ourse,hewell-knownGreek our umours,ut heresreason o believethat he wo ystemsidnotdevelopn solation.While heGreeks istinguishourlementsndbequeathedhisclassificationo therestof Eu-

rope, he ndiansdistinguishive lements. heclose similarityetween ir,thefourthlement,andsky, hefifth,uggestshat he attermighthave been added to arrive t a pentad, ne ofthemost avoured umericalroupingsf ndiancultureEichingererro-Luzzi987a: 150f.).Bethats itmay, iruvalluvarakes nowledgef hefive lements orgrantednd does notbother oenumeratehem271).Withregard o theelement ireTiruvalluvarstates hat nemaysleep n fire utonecannotsleep npoverty1049).Thishyperbole ay oundstrangeo thosenotfamiliar ith henumerousmythsboutpureheroes nd heroines ho havesurvivedhe ire rdeal. he "Tirukkural"ontainsa second ulture-specificssociation f fire. heloverwonders romwherehis beloved btainedthefire hat urns imwhenhe is far wayandcoolshimwhen e snear er. heWesterneadermayunderstandhis ouplet ince n his culturetoopassion an burn ndbe cooledor calmed.The Tamilmetaphorf cooling,however, oesnotrefernly oextinguishinghefire fpassionbut lso to causing pleasant eelingEichingerFerro-Luzzi 983: 208f.).In twoverses hepoetmentionshe volution-aryTamil classificationf living hingsccord-ingto theirypes fknowledge: lants ave onetype,humans ave six. Since thisclassificationis responsibleor ome ofthevery arepossiblemisunderstandingsfTiruvalluvar'similestwillbe discussed elow.The mental tates escribedn thethird artof the "Tirukkural"re well known o loversall over heworld. imultaneously,owever,hispart lso containseveral ulture-specificonven-tions aiddown n theoldest amilgrammar,he"Tolkppiyam,"nd nvarious oeticworks. hedistinctionetween remaritalndconjugaloveseems bvious, ut he onventionhat he onelywoman's ining asto be describedn the ontextofconjugal ove is diametricallypposed o theWesternonventionhich laces tpredominantlyin thepremaritaltage.Tiruvalluvarollowshe yperbolicescriptionsof lovesicknessn ancient amil iterature.hewomanmmediatelyosesweight,er angles lipfrom er rms, nd her omplexionecomes al-low.Forpallor o spread verher kin t is notevennecessaryhatherhusband eavesher; tsufficesfhe loosenshisembrace or moment(1187).Not nly amilwomenn ovemay eign nger.Justs Tamil asa specialword or hehabittal)so has Germanschmollen);n Italian here x-

Anthropos 7.1992


7/17

396 Gabriellaichingererro-Luzziists thehumorousaying Love is not beautifulwithout little uarrel"l'amorenon bellosenon unpo' litigarello).owever, hile urope-ans makeno distinctionetween remaritalndconjugalfeigned nger, ccordingo the Tamilconventioneigned nger s a stageof conjugalloveonly.f onewants obelieveworksf ncientTamil iteraturencludinghe"Tirukkural"talwasan nstitutionalizedorm f behaviourlmostlike oking elationships.he strengthf this n-stitutionay e nferredromhe act hat iruval-luvar peaks bout eignedngern no fewerhanfour hapters127, 131, 132,133).In additiono poeticconventionspecific oTamil ulturehe Tirukkural"ontainsan-Indianconventionsuch s the lleged onfusionetweenhumans nd other arts f nature.A delightfulinstancen Balasubramaniam'sranslationuns sfollows:Thestars otknowinghichs moon ndwhich hemaiden'sfaceHavegotbewildered;ence hey re ust quiveringn theirplace (1116)

Examples f thetypicallyamil deas in the"Tirukkural"ouldhavebeenmultipliedut hosequoted hould e enough o supportmysecondargument:a) that amil ulture as distinguishedfrom he Tamil anguage does notnormallypreventhepoet'smessages romeing niversal;(b) that hefewmessages otuniversallyccept-able are outweighedy those that re both nimportancend nnumber.hefact hat iruval-luvarpraiseskindness ndpeacefulnessppreci-ated verywhereeemsmore mportanthan hathe tells the onelywife to feign ngeron herhusband's eturn.he fact hat e recommendsoabstainromnvy eemsmoremportanthan hathe believes hehenpeckedusbando be morallycriticizable.he fact hat e stresses heneed ofself-controleems more mportanthan hathethinks manwithoutamilyannot e trusted.sto thenumericalifferenceetween heuniversaland he ulture-specificnthe Tirukkural"tmaybe useful o recall hat mong130chapters nlyfivehave culture-specificeadings. o thefourchaptersnreligious-philosophicaleliefs3, 35,37,38)mentionedboveonemay ddchap. 6 onthe Avoidance fMeat," ince heproportionfvegetariansndtheir restiges nowheres highas in ndia.

2. Tiruvalluvar's oeticLanguagea) FigurativepeechIn the irstart f his ssay havebeen oncernedwith niversalndculture-specificeaturesnde-pendentftheTamil anguagenthe Tirukkur-al"; in this econdpart shalldealwith inguis-tic aspectsof thedebatebetween niversalistsand ulturalelativists.onvincedelativistsightpoint utthatmost ftheTamilpoet'suniversalmessages re dictatedycommonense ndthegeneral uman ondition;heymostly ursueutilitarianurposewhich auses no problemortheweakversion ftheWhorfianypothesis.otest hishypothesis,herefore,shall nalyse i-ruvalluvar'soetic anguagen whichutilitarianconsiderationsanbe excluded.

It seems ntuitivelylausibleosuppose hatpoet hooses or omparisonalienteaturesfhisculturendenvironment.onsequently,he cul-ture-specifichouldoom arge n his similes ndmetaphors. close ook t thesenthe Tirukkur-al" will show, hope,that n thevastmajorityofcasesthey recross-culturallynderstandable,a factwhichseriously uestions he idea thatlanguagenfluenceshewaywe perceive hings.Thework ontainsbout400 similes ndmeta-phors. o avoiddisputesboutwhat o count sa comparisonnd,more pecifically,s a simileormetaphor,preferhis pproximateumberorthefollowingeasons: ometimeshepoetmakestwoparallel tatementseaving hecomparisonimplicit;ometimese givesonlytheobjectofcomparison,he subjectbeing provided y thechaptereading.nsuch ases he eadernd rans-lator refree o nterprethe tatementss similes,metaphors,r as no comparisont all. There realso hierarchicalimiles ike "sweeter han hesound fa flute"66) and verbalmetaphorsike"theheart urns" 293) on theclassificationfwhich pinionsmighte divided.1) Cross-culturallydentical houghtsnCross-culturallydentical igurativeExpressionsWell-knownigurativexpressionsre consideredbanalbymodernWesterners.o avoidboringhereader shallgiveonly few xamples.uch ba-nal"comparisons,owever,emonstratehathereexist ross-culturalentalroclivities.4hese ro-clivitiesreapttoqualify otonly he trongutalso theweakWhorfianypothesis.

Anthropos7.1992


8/17

IfWhorf ad Known iruvalluvar? 397Thevery irsterse f he Tirukkural"sbasedon a cross-culturallyalid imile. hepoetcom-pares he etter, thefirstetternthealphabet,to theprimeval od,thefirstnd foremostf theworld.nthis oupletppears linguisticniversalnot onsideredyChomsky.amreferringotheobservationhat ll alphabetstart ith hevowelpronouncedith hewidestpeningfthemouth.Thefact hat here as been diffusionmong l-phabetss irrelevant,ince he lphabeticalrderof ll otheretters asnot eendiffusedndvariesgreatly.nly he rominencef he etterhashaduniversalppeal.Tiruvalluvar'verse urthermoreplayson theuniversalsychologicalquation finitial ositionndgreatestmportance.elebra-tionof the"firstime,"well representedn theanthropologicaliterature,nd he act hat he irstthingn a series s best rememberedre otherexamplesfthis quation.Someobjects f comparisonavemore hanone cross-culturalubject. or instance,vil aswell as hell are like fire 308, 168) and so ispassion 1104); an exemplaryerson s a light(390) andso is knowledge268),with ts meta-phoric ppositef gnoranceictureds darknessorblackness287,999).- Teethrepearls1113);a beautifulace resembleshe fullmoon n theeyesof Tiruvalluvar1116-1119) nd n those fUhlandn the ballad Des Sngers luch" TheBard'sCurse)5 hough iet-conscious esterners

may lso conceive f a moon-likeace nnega-tive erms. n eunuchs consideredowardlyndweakbyTiruvalluvar614,727) andmany therpersonsheworld ver.Flora ndfaunawould eem o be particularlyapt to suggest ulture-specificomparisonsoteasilyunderstood ithoutomment.utwithfew xceptionsobediscussedelow hissnot o.For nstance,he hornyhrub rovidesheTamilpoetwith figurativeieceof advice hat as itsexact quivalentn he nglishnip he riarnthebud."Tigers,ions, lephants,rocodiles,ackals,peacocks,tc.,neednot enative oone'scountryto be chosenfor similes nd metaphors.incefiercenesss universallyssociatedwith ride hetigereems o walkproudly.emay hus erve sa metaphoror proudman'sgait 59).The commonsense etaphysicianonceives fthe ody nd he oul s intimatelyonnectedur-

inga person's ifetime ut eparablefter eath.Theformerase leadsto the mage f overs on-nectedike he ody nd oul 1 122), he atter ayinspirehe dea of the soul-bird"hat eavestheeggshellnTiruvalluvar'verse338) and preadsitswingsna poembyEichendorff.6Inchap. 0 on"ChoosingheRight lace" thepoettellsus that hecrocodile s invinciblenthe water ut can be overcomef it leaves thewater495). Anybodymayunderstandhishint,butwhat s more, is second mplicitimile nthe same theme as also cross-culturalalidity:thegreathariotoesnot unnthewater nd heboatnot n land 496).Comparingood nd ex 1191,1326), ove ndintoxicatingrink1145,1201, 281) reuniversalcommonplaces;o are metaphorsf wealth orthings f value andmetaphorsf ornamentorthingsfbeauty.When iruvalluvarays hat hil-dren rean ornamentothehouse 60) hehas theexplicitpproval ftheRomanmatronornelia,motherf theGracchi.The lynchpin667, 1032),themeasuringod(796), andthe ouch tone505,986) areamongfurtherross-culturalimiles oundn the Tiruk-kural."2) Cross-culturalhoughts xpressednCulture-specificuiseIn order oqualifyherelativists'laim hat ul-ture nfluenceshoughthediscoveryf identi-cal thoughtsxpressedn culture-specificuisewould eemto be as importants thediscoveryofcross-culturallydenticalhoughtsn cross-cul-turallydenticaluise.The formerategory,ow-ever, asthe dvantagef notbeing oringo thereader.In oneverse fthe haptern"Assessingow-er" he oetwarns hatven peacock's eathernexcesswill break he xelofthe art 475). ThisobservationorrespondsotheWesternroverbial"laststraw." emaining ithinxamples erivedfromiruvalluvar'figurativeestiarynow ometo he lephant.nteachingheministerow o ct,Tiruvalluvardviseshim o subdue neelephantwith hehelpof another678). The same dea isexpressed ythe talian aying onenail drivesout another ail" (chiodoscaccia chiodo).TheBiblical margaritasnte orcos"nthe Tirukkur-al" becomes nectarourednto hegutter"720).Needham985dealswith roclivitiesfthemind; thersarementionednEichingererro-Luzzi987a:partIB.5 "... dieKnigin ar chn ndmilde,lsblicke ollmonddrein"the ueenwas beautifulndgentleikethefullmoon]. 6 "... undmeine eelespannte eithre lgel us " [andmy oul preadtswingswidely].

Anthropos7.1992


9/17

398 GabriellaEichinger erro-LuzziThe belief hat ll-gainedwealthwill not ast suniversallymployed o dissuadewrongdoers.heItalians couch thisreceived wisdom n the words"thedevil's flourwill turn ntobran" la farina eldiavolova incrusca);Tiruvalluvaraysthat ryingtopreserve uchwealth s likepouringwater ntoa potof unbaked lay 660). In devising his imilehemayhavehad at theback of hismind hemythof "Renuk" whose virtue id enableher to carrywater n an unbakedpot.The balance is a universal ymbolof equilib-riumand impartiality.iruvalluvar mploysthesimile of the balance (118) buthe also knows aculture-specificquivalent: hekvati, shoulderpole used for carrying urdenswhich must beof even weight.For instancea lovesick womancomparesher ife to a shoulderpole fromwhichherpassion hangson one side andhermodesty n

the other1163; cf. also 1196).Concluding hissubsection wish to draw at-tentionto two culture-specific arallels not touniversalkinds of wisdom but to universalkindsof fantasy.n a Germanfairy ale thehyperbolicdescription f a delicategirltakesthe form f aprincesswho cannotsleep on a pea even thoughthepea is placed undera heap of matresses. nthe"Tirukkuraj" girl's feet are so delicatethethe niccam floweran invented lower o delicatethat tperishes nbeing melled) nd swan's downhurt hem ike theprickly erunci ruit1 120).The second instance consists in mistakingmetaphor or the real thing, common deviceforcreatinghumour.Verses of the "Tirukkural"inwhich his ntentionalmistake s madehave, nfact, humorous ouch.The girl in love assertsthat ince her over resides n hereyes she doesnotdarepaint hem 1127); since he resides nherheart he doesnotdareeatanythingot for ear fburning im) (1128). A metaphor, owever,maybe mistaken orrealitywithout nycomic intent,for nstancewhen tis axiomatically elieved thathumour erves o reduce ensions r that he mind

trulyworks ike a computer.3) Cross-culturallynderstandableimiles andMetaphorswith Culture-specificwistBoth cross-culturallydentical imiles and meta-phorsand culture-specific igures f speech ex-pressing ross-culturallydentical houghtsemon-strate he xistence f mental roclivities,.e.,theyfavoureuniversalism ver cultural nd linguisticrelativism. lso this ubcategoryf Tiruvalluvar'ssimiles and metaphors oes not support he hy-

pothesis hat he anguagewe speak nfluencesheway we perceivethings hough heweight f theculture-specificncreases.The figures f speechtobe discussed recross-culturallynderstandablebutknowledge fTamil culture elpstograsp heirpreciseor their ullmeaning.WesternanguagesandTamil have theproverb"God helpsthose who help themselves." iruval-luvar ddsthatGod comesforward ith iedwaistcloth 1023). To understandhis mage fully nemustknowthe Tamilmale's habitofknotting phis ankle-longwaist clothwhengetting eadytowork. Even thisculture-specific etaphor, ow-ever,has a close cross-culturalarallel. n variousEuropean anguages pullingup one's sleeves sig-nifies reparing orwork.The simultaneous ossessionofcontrastingol-ours s a universalmetaphoror mbiguityndfal-sity.Tiruvalluvar refershe contrast etween edand black tothemore ommon nebetweenwhiteand black becausethe eed ofthe rab'seye kunrimani) witha red body and a black top provideshim with suggestive bjectofcomparison:The fair utsideof some is like theKunri' crimsonhue.Quite foul like Kunri' black-huednose is their wn insideview (277)Havingseen the seed mayrender hesimile moresalient o the mind.

Comparinga youngwoman's beautiful om-plexion oyoung proutss a standard amilsimilethatTiruvalluvareadily ccepts 1113). Itsmean-ingcan be guessedbutmaybecome clearer foneknows thathe refers o theshining oldenhue ofmangosprouts.Some similesand metaphorsn the"Tirukkur-aj" areuniversally nderstandableetmoremean-ingfulto the Tamils than to membersof othercultures. or instance, tressinghe mportancefteaching hepoetclaimsthat hoseunabletoteachwhattheyhave learned are like flowerswithoutfragrance650). To appreciate hefullpertinenceof this simile one must remember he emphasison scent nd theolfactoryense in Indian culture.Roses cultivated or he ength ftheir talks atherthan heir ragrance ould notfindmanypurchas-ers inTamilnadu.Comparing yes to blue flowers s common ntheWest.Also Tiruvalluvarees eyesas dark-bluewater ilies (kuvalai) (1114).7 However,by flow-er-like yes in the "Tirukkural"1112) and otherworks of Tamil literature hepoetmostlyhas inmind nybeautiful lowerndependentf tscolour(Eichinger erro-Luzzi1990: 122f.).

Anthropos 7.1992


10/17

If Whorf adKnown iruvajluvar? 399In the ection n conjugalove thewife om-plains hat ot onsolinghe ne whofeignsngeris likeuprooting creeper lreadywithered orlack of water1304).Thiscomparison ay eemwell-chosennywhere;or heTamils, owever,itpossesses particularaliencebecause of thepan-Indianmetaphorf a creeper or slenderwoman.A universal ental roclivitynot constraint)makes he arth femaleymbol. o conceive fthe and s the armer's ife,herefore,omesnat-ural.Tiruvalluvar,owever,dds totheuniversalimage culture-specificwist.fthefarmeroesnot ailyook fteris and, ewrites,twillfeignangerikehis wife1039).Milk andhoney re a standardairof goodthingsn the Bible and elsewhere. iruvalluvaragreeswithhis valuation hen e makes he ov-er ay hathe aliva fhisbeloveds ikemilk ndhoney1121).This imiles particularlyoignanttothe ndians ecause f he eliefnthe ollutingquality f saliva andthe fact hat reoccupationwith ollutionends o bedisregardedn ove.Pollution eliefs endermore alient lso an-other imilen the Tirukkural."n Balasubrama-niam's ranslationhepoet tates:

Themenwhohave ustainedhemoral all romff heir orthAre ike hehairwhich as sustainedfall rom ead oearth(964)Also Westernersislikehairsdropped utespe-ciallywhen hey ind hemnthesoup,butthenegative ttitudeowards odilymarginss in-comparablytrongern ndia. hevery amilwordmayirhair)has becomediscrediteds a term fabuse ndtends obe avoided.The sleep of death s a universalmetaphorwhile tsconverse as morerestrictedurrency.In thefolklore f the worldresuscitation aybe comparedoanawakening.utTiruvalluvar'sparallelmetaphorsfdeath s sleepand birthsan awakening339) soundmostappropriatenpan-Indianulture here hetheoryf rebirthsaccepted y arge arts f thepopulation.4) Strangeimiles ndMetaphorsThediscussionfTiruvalluvar'similesndmeta-phors asbeen rrangedna continuumromhe

decidedly niversalo the most ulture-specific.Butevenin thisfourthnd lastsubcategoryfhisfiguresfspeech heres only enuousupportfor ulturalelativism. ostfigurativexpressionsare understandableross-culturallyven thoughtheymaycome unexpected.ome similes ndmetaphorsnthe Tirukkural"hat eemstrange,at least to me,maybe thepoet's idiosyncraticcreationsr owe to a diffusenfluencefTamilculture orwhich cannot inpoint reason. orinstance, hen alsefriendships comparedoananvil hatmaydestroyneanymoment821) theidea s clear ut would ave xpectedomparisontoan nstrumentctivelyandledike hehammerratherhan o thepassive ne of the nvil.Whenfurys calleda fire hatwillburn heprotectiveaft alled one's kinsmen306) themeaningf the versepresents o problem: uryruins oodrelationsnthefamily. newonders,however, hy he oethas chosenhemetaphorftheraft. erhapsthas been uggestedohimbythe ssociationetween ire nd water r hemayhave houghtf the aft s permittingim o crossthe sea oftroubles"622).Somemetaphorsre unclear vento modernTamils.The heart f thewomanwho thinksfherdistant usband's eturniterallyclimbs hebranch f a tree" 1264). CommentatoruliyurKesikan magineshe heart o climb he tree olookoutfor hehusband. ranslatoralasubra-maniamnd ommentatorhidambaranarnterpretthemetaphoro mean oyful xpectation.f thelattermeaning ere orrect,s is likely,twouldbe a culture-specificlaborationftheuniversalassociationetweenoyand nupwardmovement.Tiruvalluvar'strangest etaphoreems obereally n erroneoushoiceamong hemultiplemeaningsf theTamilwordnacai.Balasubrama-niam ranslatesheverse s follows:Thecravingreatalledpovertywilldestroyll at onceThe ancientncestryfoneandone'sownwords f sense

(1043)Commentatorhidambaranarimilarly nder-stands he erm acai as desire rcraving. om-mentatoruliyur esikan,onversely,eriveshenounmoreplausibly rom he verbnaci (to de-stroy),.e.,he callspoverty ruin atherhancraving.Abetterupportor heweak ormf heWhor-fianhypothesishan he boveexamplesmaybecross-culturallyell-knownimilesndmetaphorswhichTiruvalluvarses in an unforeseenense.In theWest, personmovingmechanicallyr7 Thepoet eems omakeno distinctionetweenlack nddark lue.There s noTamilword or lue;theSanskritword llafoundnancientamil iteratureutnot n the"Tirukkural"eans oth lack nddark lue.

Anthropos7.1992


11/17

400 Gabriellaichingererro-Luzzidevoid of freewill may be likened to a puppet.The Tamil poet claims thatwithout he beggarpeople would move about like wooden puppets,implicitly ecause theyhave no opportunityopracticethe virtueof almsgiving 1058; cf. also1020). He thus mploys hepuppet imileto stressthe unnaturalnessf a person's behaviour s analternative o his morefrequent omparison f anegative igure o a corpse 143, 214, 1001,etc.).Westernerspeakingof a personas "skin andbones"hyperbolicallyefer o his emaciated tate.In Tiruvalluvar'smind bones covered with skinare a metaphor ora loveless and hence lifelessperson 80).The Greek mythof the Danaides has givenus themetaphor f thebottomless essel. Tryingto fill it amountsto a vain effort. iruvalluvarconsiderably hifts hefigurativemeaningof thedefective eceptacle. n his words a personwhodoes not knowhow to live in harmonywithhisrelativess like a boundless ankfilledwithwater,i.e., he is of no use to them 523).As far as I can see, the tree metaphors nthree erses ofthe"Tirukkural" re theonlyonesthatmightbe misunderstoodather hancausingsurprise r, veryoccasionally, ncomprehension.For instance:Thepower fwilldoth onstitutethewisdomreat fone.Who redevoid f that retrees,savethatheyook ikeman (600; f. lso576,997)By substitutinglocks ofwood for rees heWest-ern readermightmake sense of thiscouplet;Ti-ruvalluvar'smeaning,however, s different.hetree in thisverse is not anothermetaphor or apersoncalled lifeless because he behaves in anunnaturalway. The poet rather eems to refer othe above culture-specificlassification f typesof knowledge.Trees are deficientn knowledgebecause,unlikehumans, heyhave onlyone typeofknowledge.Themiraculously proutingtick rdry reebe-longsto thefolkloremotifs f the world. t is nor-mallygiven positivemeaning s inthe egendof"Tannhuser." iruvalluvar's omparison etweena loveless life and a dry ree proutingn a deserttract78) might hereforeound ncomprehensibleuntil one realizes that it must have a negativemeaning.Commentatorhidambaranar nd trans-lator Balasubramaniam ave thoughtt advisableto specify hat hepoet wants to stresswith thismetaphorhe mpermanencef a loveless life.The concluding example of Tiruvalluvar's

strange imilesandmetaphors oes not cause anyproblemof understandingut is remarkable oranother eason.The poetwrites:Theonewhowears saintlyookwith onscience eakwithinis like cow tself hich razethlothedntiger'skin(273)In thisversethe well-knownmetaphorf thewolfin sheep's clothing s used in a sense oppositetothe one we might xpect.The last two instancesdemonstratehepotentialndeterminacyfobjectsof comparisonwhichmayhave notonlymoreorless similarmeanings utalso oppositemeanings.Besides, while a sprouting rystickor treearemiraclesnotveryfarremoved rom eality, cowin tiger'sskin or a wolf in sheep's clothing resimilesof nonexisting hings ilporuluvamai) ac-cording o theclassificationfTamilrhetorics.The cultural elativistmight rguethat imilesofflowers, essels,etc., reenvironmentallyeter-minedwhich hey re,ofcourse,not incenothingobligesus to choosethem), ut uchdeterminationis definitivelyxcluded in thecase of imaginaryobjectsof comparison.f some imaginaryimilesand metaphors an also be shown to be cross-culturally imilarthis proves beyonddoubt theexistence f innateproclivities f themind.

Tiruvalluvarmayhave intentionallyormulatedhismaxims nsucha wayas tomake themwidelyacceptable,but he could not have foreseen hatmostof his figurativexpressionswould also re-main cross-culturallyalid throughoutenturiesand millennia.The preceding nalysisof similesand metaphorsn the"Tirukkural"ittle upportsthe claim thatthe languagewe speak influencesthe way we perceive things.Only about half adozen figurativexpressions 78, 579, 600, 997,1043,1264) in400 maybe difficultocomprehendoutsideof thepoet's culture.b) SoundPlayIn similes and metaphorsinguistic nd extralin-guistic actors re inextricablyinked.Their ross-cultural imilaritiesnd differences,herefore,l-low to testnotonlythe weakWhorfian ypothesisbut also the hypothesis f culturalrelativismngeneral.The variousforms f rhyme,onversely,createpurely inguisticpatterns. heir examina-tion should end itself o testtheweak Whorfianhypothesis hat he languagewe speak facilitatescertain atternsfthought.

Anthropos7.1992


12/17

If Whorf ad Known iruvaUuvar? 40 1In addition o beingbased on the kural meterthe verses of the "Tirukkural" mploy variousforms f rhyme.The most commontypeoccursinthecoda of thefirstyllable nthe nitialwordsof the two lines. But theremay also be rhymebetween wordswithin he first ine, alliteration,andrepetitionfwordsorsyllableswith imilar rdifferent eanings.According o mycountonlyabout 15% of the 1330 verses do without hesestylistic echniques elying nlyon the meterfortheirpoetic effect.Tiruvalluvar's nterest n thesounds of his languagecan also be inferred romthefact hathe starts is workwith he etter (cf.p. 397) and endsit,as perceptively ointed utbyBalasubramaniam1962: 504) withthe lettern,the ast letter f theTamil alphabet. n doing so,I think, e mayhave wantedto express inguis-ticallythe same idea of wholenessexpressed nthe threepartsof his workcomprisinghe wholepurpose fthis-worldlyxistence ccording otheIndiantradition.If language can influence hought, s propo-nentsof the weak versionof the Whorfian y-pothesis laim, t seemsplausibleto assumethatpoetwho pays so much attention o his languageshould ometimes e temptedo adapthisthoughtto his languagerather hanthe otherway round.In investigatinghispossibility shall pointoutinstances n which his s clearlynotthe case andquoteall those a tinyminority in which ound

play seems to influence houghtnd thussupportthehypothesis.1) RhymeThoughtsnot nfluenced yrhymeThe fact thatmost thoughtsn the "Tirukkural"havenotbeensuggested yrhymes easytoshow:first, ecause the author xpressesthethoughtnotherwords too; second, because the thoughtshave cross-cultural arallels, and third,becausetheyare patently etermined y Tamil or Indianculturen general ndependentf language.Sincetherepetitionf similaror identicalmessages intenversesperchapters one of the structuralrin-ciplesof the Tirukkural"deas expressed hroughdifferentoundplays are so commonas to needno comment.A more interestingest case may be ideasthathave cross-culturalarallelsbutareexpressedthrough leasingrhyme n the "Tirukkural." orinstance, n the chapter n "Avoidanceof MeanAssociation" hepoetrhymeshe wordfor ssoci-

ation, ompany, riendsinam) withthewordformind manam) seven times.Thoughthisrhymedpair s not typical inary onjunctionfcontrast-ingor similar hingssuchas good andevil,healthand wealth) it does not seem far-fetchedlso inlanguagesother hanTamil. This rhyme ermitsthe poet to tackle the nature/nurtureebate. Heclaims thatknowledgeor intelligencearivu) de-pendson themind, .e., is innate,while a person'scharacter ependson thecompanyhe keeps, i.e.,is environmentallyetermined453).Manyversesof the "Tirukkural" re based onthe binaryconjunction f true similars and op-posites,most of which exist cross-culturallyutmaynotalwaysrhymen other anguages.Of the20 suchrhymed airs n the "Tirukkural" foundonly two rhymed quivalentsin European lan-guages: oy and sorrow inpamltunpamn Tamil)which, n poetic German, s rendered s "Freudund Leid"; praise and disparagementpukaljikal_as well as icailvacai in the "Tirukkural")whichmaybe rendered s "fame andblame" inEnglish.Given the importance f the visual sense forman the equationof seeing and knowingoccurscross-culturally.n several Indo-European an-guages the verb "to know" is derivedfrom hesame root s theverb to see" (cf.also theEnglish"I see" for "I understand,"which has a Tamilequivalent).Therefore, iruvalluvar'smetaphorfeyes for numbers i.e., mathematics) nd letters(i.e., grammar) n the followingverse may beunderstoodnywhere:The science f numberss well s the rts f ettersare,Areboth f them he yes f men live, hewisedeclare(392)Theconsonance etween heTamilwords ornum-ber (en) and eye (kan) at thebeginning f eachline makes thiscoupletone of the best loved ofthewholework,but does not nspire tsmeaning.According o an Indian socio-religious heorythe renouncerdies to the world. Therefore heassociationbetween died (irantu)and renounced(turnatu) omes natural o the Indians; in Tamilit is embellished y rhyme. iruvalluvar utsthisculture-specificair of similars n versesdealingwithdifferentubjects, factthatby itself howstheprimacy fthoughtver ts inguistic uise 22,159,310).The association f ideas between eigned ngeron thepartof the wife and subsequent morousembracewas standardn ancientTamil literature.It does not come as a surprise hat t has beenphoneticallyonnected hroughhymetallktal)and throughlliterationpulalpulla)' both tylistic

Anthropos7.1992


13/17

402 Gabriela Eichingererro-Luzzipossibilitiesre skilfullyxploited y thepoet(1109,1284,1267).In thechaptern "Possession fLove" Tiru-valluvar tates hat he oveless neskeepevery-thing o themselves hilethe ivingones giveaway ven heir ones 72). Thisstrangeontrastmight e thoughto have been inspired y therhymeetweenove anpu)and bone enpu)butthis s not so. The verseclearly efers o themythologicalageDadhsiwhowillinglyavehisbackbone s a weapon o thegodstohelpthemdestroyhedemons. he richnessftheTamil o-cabularyasnot uggestedhe ssociationf deasbuthas enabled hepoet ofind rhymeor t.Thoughtsnfluencedy rhymeIn a delightfullyronic omplaintn thepart fthewife iruvalluvarnsertshewell-knownamilsayingthe uinedneshaveno friends"kettrkkunattrillai)o reate onsonance ithhe irst ordofthe econd ineofhisverse.Balasubramaniamtranslatest as follows:Is itbecause he allen aveno friendshathou,myheart,Dostrun s thoughost lease fter im ndfrommedepart?(1293)

Stressinghe angerf nternalnmityhe oetclaims hat ven fthefissurenthefamily ereas small as that n a sesamegrain etpakavu),internalnmityutpakai)would ause ruin889).This imile asapparentlyeen uggestedo himbythe lliterativeamil ayingnot he ize ofasesame rain"ellalavuMai).Tiruvalluvargreeswith he ross-culturalb-servationhat heface s themirrorfthe oul.His verse o this ffectmaybe rendereds: likethemirrorhowswhatsnear t atuttatu)he aceshows trong eelingskatuttatu)706). Thoughempiricallyorrecthespecificationstrong"sstrictlyuperfluousnd eems ohavebeen reatedforreasons f rhyme. othChidambaranarndBalasubramaniameglectt.In making hierarchicalomparisonetweena treacherousinisterndanenemy iruvalluvarassertshat minister howants o harmimplic-itly heking) s worse han 0 crores700 mil-lion)ofenemies639). nthis erse henumericalhyperboleehipatu ti)mayhave beenchosentorhyme ith heword or vil,harmpal_utu)?Alternatively,he ross-culturalreferenceor henumbereven s such orwrit arge hroughhe8 Therhymesbetweenhe yllablesl_ndpaL

addition f zeros Eichingererro-Luzzi 987(2:151f., 155)mayhave beenprimary;mong henumerousamilwords or armhe oetmay avechosen he nerhymingith seven."Therhymeetweenhename f a smallmilletseed tinai) nd hat f he all almyrareepanai)provided ytheTamil anguage ndoubtedlyn-spires iruvalluvar;e uses tthreeimes o stressgreat ontrast104,433, 1282).The poet's a little xcessivepraiseof thelearned as already een noted.n one versehegoes so far s to assert hat nemaymakehe-roes literallyillr kivarbow-ploughers")ne'senemies utnotthe earnedliterallyollerul_a-var word loughers")872).The attermetaphorseemsto have been nventedo rhyme ith heformer ore tandardne."Bow-ploughers"eferto warheroes fMaravar astewho, ntimes fpeace,usedto turn ofarming.When hepoetrecommendso be wise withthewise and "white ike halk"with he gnorant(714) he uses a similepatentlynspired y theTamilanguage.n the ection nfigurativepeech(p.400) I havepointed ut that omeobjects fcomparison aybe given ppositemeanings;utthere re alsoopposite bjects fcomparisonhatmaybe given denticalmeaning. oth darknessor blackness ndwhiteness ay igurativelytandfor gnorance.hough iruvalluvar'form f thesimilefor gnorancewhite ike chalk"maybepeculiar o theTamil anguage tsgeneraldeacorrespondso the ross-culturaltabula asa," nparticularo theGermanmetaphorf an empty,hencewhite, agefor nignoramus.Oneofthemost amousoupletsfthe Tiruk-kural" ontainsneof he learestnfluencesf heTamil anguage n thepoet'sfigurativepeech:The earnedmen lone re aidtohave heiryes lways.The unletteredavebut pairof sores pon heir ace (393)Theeyemetaphoror earningascross-culturalvalidity, utTiruvalluvar'secondmetaphorfthe orecan be conceived nlybyspeakersf alanguagenwhich he erm or ye kan)rhymeswith hat or oreorwoundpun) cf.also 575).Elsewhere,seless yes might e metaphoricallycalled mptyoles rorbits. hisverse sthereforeone ofthevery ewnicely upportingheweakWhorfianypothesishat ne's languagemay n-fluence ne'sthought.IntheprecedinguotationsheTamil anguageapparentlynspiredhe reationf imiles ndmet-aphorswithoutouchinghemessage ftheverse.

Anthropos7.1992


14/17

If Whorf adKnown iruvalluvar? 403But there re also a few cases in whichrhymingwords eemto be whollyorpartly esponsible orthemessage conveyed.Graceorcompassion ami) andwealth porul)are notreally oppositesbutdue to theirpleasingrhyme heymaybe pressed ntothis role. Some-times his akesnotmuch ffort,or nstance,whenmaterialwealth s contrasted ithgrace, .e., spir-itual wealth 241). However,when Tiruvalluvarasserts hat ambling estroys ealth . . andgrace(938) the atter ausal connectioneemsstrained ospeakers f non-Dravidiananguages. tmayhavebeenproposedforreasons ofrhyme.Also the claim thathelpfulnessvlnmai) isrooted n persistenttrivingtlanmai) may beinspiredby therhyme etweenthe initial wordsof the two-lineverse (613) since the empiricalconnection etween he twotypesof behaviour snot at all obvious.Victory r success and defeator ruinare uni-versaloppositesbut thewaythesewordsareusedin one verse ofthe"Tirukkural"uggests n influ-enceof theTamil anguage.Well-meaning ersonsanywheremaysubscribe o thedidactic tatementthat oveting ther eople's propertyrings uin;but not to its converse:that no covetingbringsvictory180). The beautyof therhyme etweenviral victory) nd irai (ruin)has apparently eenmore importanto the poet thanthe logical orempirical onnection etween hetwoconcepts.

Perhaps the strongestnfluence f rhymeonthe meaningof verses occurs in chapter66 onthe Avoidanceof Sloth."Tiruvalluvar'emphasison the familyhas alreadybeen notedas a traittypical f Indianculture.However,onlyspeakersof Dravidian anguagesare likelyto think f thefamilywhenthinkingfsloth. n six versesofthechapter n questionthepoet stresses hedangersofsluggishnessmati)andthebenefitsfavoidingitwithregard o thefamilykuti), n associationof ideas almostcertainlynspired y therhymingwords.2) AlliterationndRepetition fWordsThoughts ot nfluencedy alliterationndrepetitionfwordsAlliterations verypleasingto theTamils; itcon-tinues o be employed n poetry utoccasionallyalso in prose sentences f modernTamil writersand orators.As in thecase of rhymen thefinalsyllable,verses in which these stylistic evicesclearlydo not influence hought re easy to find

for hesame three easons stated bove. As in thecase of rhyme lso, I shall give a fewexamplesdiscontinuinghe weak Whorfian ypothesisndquoteall those which seem to supportt.Alliteration,ike rhyme, trengthenshe linkbetween omepairsof similars ndopposites rob-ably nevery anguage.For instance, hetwopos-itivenotions of love and life are joined throughalliterationn English,German, nd Tamil.WhenTiruvalluvarwrites hatnobodyshows (or needs)more strength f mind than women who livewithout eceivingkind wordsfrom heirbelovedhusbands 1198) the alliterationetween he rootsof theverbsfor iving vl) and oving vl)rendersthe verse more pleasing but certainly oes notinfluencetsmeaning.A predatory nimal patientlywaitingfor theright imeto attackmaycatchpeople's imagina-tionanywhere.n India the whiteheron,becauseof its common occurrenceand striking olour,suggests tselfreadilyas a simile for a personchoosingthe opportunemoment.This would beso even without he help of language. Tiruval-luvar,however, ybasinghisverse on both nitialandfinal hyme okk-okkulkutt-okkuliterally, er-on-like/striking-like)enders isteaching niquelyimpressive490). The term or ime itam) n thisverse calls for a comment. ts firstmeaning splace; it thus patializes ime, n idea sporadicallyfound n Indo-European nd non-Indo-Europeanlanguages.For nstance,heJapanese ermmamaymean either pace orpause (Takeuchi ndNozawa1989: 10), the Indian termmandala has bothaspatial nd a temporalmeaning, ndinGerman swell as in Englishone maycall a periodof timea "space of time" German:Zeitraum).Whorf o-ticedthat westernndo-Europeananguages andothers) . . use many space words and patternsfordealingwith ime" 1967: 266) buthe didnotdrawthe obvious conclusion: hat hisfact howsourthinkingbouttimeto be independentf thelanguagewe speak.In thefollowing xampleTamilculture,t argerather heTamilvocabulary, eems to inspire hepoet's similes:To utterainful ordswhile herearepleasing ords aloreIs likeone'stastingawestruitswith ipestruitsn store (100)Most people the world over may endorse thisdidactic tatementut t soundsmorepertinentotheTamilsbecause of their ulinary lassificationof fruits.Raw fruitsky) are used in cooking,

Anthropos7.1992


15/17

404 Gabriellaichingererro-Luzziripe ruitspal_amrkam) re eaten aw.Amongthetwo Tamilwordsforripefruit iruvalluvarnaturallyhooses he nepermittingim o createalliterativeimiles.The belief hat hegods nheavenpraise hewife evoted oherhusbands a pan-Indianruismindependentf language. iruvalluvarxpresseshis convictionn a versecontainingix wordsstarting ith he etter , three f whichhaveidenticaloots. hepoet, nfact, chieves oundharmonylsobyrepeatingne nd he ameword,sometimes ith ifferenteaningsutmore f-tenwith imilar r identicalmeaningss inthiscase 58).Thefurtheran-Indianruthhat ne must e-comeattachedo God in order o becomeun-attached o thisworld 350) in the"Tirukkural"becomes tonguewister. he seven-wordersecomprisesixwordstartingith he yllable arr,therootof theverb to attach." uch linguisticvirtuosityfrownedt by some modern ritics)does learly ot nfluencehemeaningf he erse.The doublemeaning f words lso neednotinspirehoughts.norder oexpresshe ross-cul-turallycceptable eachinghat ne shouldfearevilmore han ire iruvalluvarkilfullyhoosesamong everal xisting ords or ire heword lthatlso means vil 208).The ssociationf deasbetweenirendevil suniversal fornstancenthefire f hell andmay venbe responsibleorthedoublemeaningf theTamilword.Inoneverse nthe SenseofHonour" iruval-luvar venmanages oexploit hreemeaningsfthesyllablekunrwhich ntersn theterms or"hill"and for ruining"s well as in the nameofthekunri eed cf.p.398).But his tylisticeatdoesnotnfluenceismessage.tserves o xpressmore alientlyhe ross-culturalisdom hat hehigh-placednes ofhill-like eight)mustwatchtheirteps.fthey ommithe mallest aultthesize ofa kunrieed)theywillbe ruined965).ThoughtsnfluencedydoublemeaningsI could notfind ny nstancef alliterationndrepetitionfwords r syllables hatmight aveinfluencediruvalluvar'sigurativeanguage rmessage. utdoublemeaningseem o berespon-siblefor hree f hisassociations f ideas,thusprovidingenuousupportoringuisticelativism.Speakingf the ountryhepoet laims hat nlya naturallyich ountrysa trueountry;countryinwhich nehas tostrive ard oacquirewealthis not o (739). Given he mphasisnpersistentstrivinglsewherentheworkhis ssertioneems

strangend might hereforee inspired y thedoublemeaningf thesyllable t n thewordfor ountryntu) nd nthat or to strive"nt-a). However,inceTiruvalluvars not lways on-sistent,hisnfluenceftheTamil anguagen hismessage emainsoubtful.In thenext wo casesmyargumentnfavourofa linguisticnfluencen thepoet's thoughtsmuchtronger.heculture-specificonjunctionfthedead and therenouncermbellishedhroughrhymeas beendiscussed bove p.401). nveigh-ing gainst uryiruvalluvarriteshat he uriousare ike he ead; hosewhorenounceuryre ikerenouncers310). In thisverse hedoubleuse oftheword or the newho enounced"turnatavar)ispurelyedundant,ut he ouble se of hewordirantuxploits doublemeaning.he firstime tmeans the furiousnes,"the second ime thedeadones." This semantic icetyeems o haveinspiredhe imile.In thechaptern "Kindness" hepoetreferstoeyesfive imes,n associationf ideaswhichwouldhardlyccur ospeakersfnon-Dravidianlanguages. he TamilwordTiruvalluvarhoosesforkindness r favouringrace kannttam)it-erallymeans eye-movement."urthermore,heveryword or ye kan)has kindness rgrace sone of itssecondary eanings. otsurprisingly,thepoetthinks feyeswhen hinkingfgrace,fornstancenthefollowingerse:What stheuse ofsong,ifwithts une tdidn't ccord?What s theuseofeye,iffavouringracetdidn'tward? (573)It s noteworthyhathe ermor yehasgrace sone of ts econdary eaningsna culture hereeye mayalso denote he evil eye.This curiousplaywith ppositesdds totheparadoxesypicalofTamil ulturehat havepointedut lsewhere(Eichingererro-Luzzi983).ConclusionsTherhetoricaluestionIfWhorf ad known i-ruvalluvar?"n the title f thisessaycan nowbe answered.n mymind,he wouldnot haveformulatedhe trongersionfhishypothesisndmight aveconsiderablyualifiedheweakone.Theuniversalnthe Tirukkuraj"utweighsyfartheculture-specificothnumericallynd inimportance.his s true or he eneralnfluencefculturenthoughtnd venmore o for he pecif-

Anthropos7.1992


16/17

If Whorf ad Known iruvalluvar? 405ic influencef anguage. nly bouthalf dozensimilesndmetaphorsn tmighteincomprehen-sible rmisunderstoodithoutetailednowledgeof theTamil ulturend anguage. nly nabout20-30 versesn 1330the tylisticossibilitiesftheTamil anguage eemto be responsibleorcomparisonr have otherwiseuggested hat ssaid.I donotwish o mplyhat he Tirukkural"stheonlyornecessarilyhe best test ase apttoqualifyven heweakversion f inguisticelativ-ism. robablyny oeticworkwrittennan exoticlanguage ould have served hesamepurpose.The more ncient hework he more ikely recross-culturalimilarities;otbecause heremightbe anevolutionn iteraryxpressionutbecauseancient oets or better oetsuntil ecentlydid not consider ovelty,he totaldisregardftraditionthemajor riterionf artisticuality.The stress n theuniversal verthe culture-specificn thisessaydoes notmeanthat en-dorseChomsky's ostulatef an innate niversalgrammar.here snoneedfor nunderlyingnityholdingogetherhe urfaceiversityfgrammars.Such unfalsifiablessentialistrinciplesan bedispensedwith.Overlappingimilaritiesmongthe rammarsf heworldnthemannerf fam-ily esemblancere llthatsneededWittgenstein1976:67).ContraryoChomskyt seems omethat hechild'svirginmemorynd theopportunityt hasto isten or year rtwobeforet startsospeakareperfectlydequate o account or he rapid"acquisitionf itsmotherongue. ven beyondchildhoodntensivendirectrainingoupledwithoccasional orrectionsaybe enough o becomefluentn a secondanguage.The child'sexcellentmemorys also evidentin other orms f learning.t does notonly n-teriorizehegrammarf its motherongue othat t can create entencest has neverheard;it also interiorizeshephoneticsf its mothertongueo thatt can nnovate ords.A Europeanchildwillnot nvent ords tartingith heAzteccombinationl norwill t thinkfusing ones sphonemes.espite he hild's rapid"earningfthephonetictructuref its motherongueno-body, omyknowledge,asproposed universalphonetictructurenderlyingll linguisticounds(apart,fcourse, romonstraintsmposed ythearticulatoryystem).Inmymind,hefact hat very ormal umanbeing earnswithoutifficultyismotheronguebutmeetswithncreasingifficultieshen ryingto earn dditionalanguagesatern ife upports

thememory ypothesis.s a furtherupportfthishypothesistmaybe recalledhat very or-mallygifted hild earnswithout ifficultyndspecificnstructionlsothemusical ystemf tsculture.While olyglots ho earn ew anguagesin adulthoodrefar rom are ersonswho earnadditionalmusical ystemsn adulthood re ex-ceptional. gain am not ware hatnybodyasproposedhe xistence f anunderlyingniversalmusical cale to explain he"rapid" earningfone's musical ystemnchildhood.To demonstratehat he child'sknowledges"underdeterminedy the fragmentaryvidenceavailable" o itChomsky1975: 10, 14) devisescertainngrammaticalentences hich oEnglishchildwould verform uch s: "is themanwhotall s in the room?"Thissentence, owever,sungrammaticaln English, utin German t isperfectlyorrecto ay: istderMann, er rost,im Zimmer?"apartfrom hefact thatneitherEnglish orGermanpeakers ould se a relativeclause n this ase).I havepointedut lsewhereEichingererro-Luzzi 1987e:321) that here annot eany rche-type f the cross-culturalythologicaligurefthehalf-man,ince hehalf-man ay everticallyorhorizontallyivided, e maybe composed fmale ndfemale alves rofdifferentalehalvesand he maybe halfonly.All that s commonto thesevarious ormss thegeneraldea of abinaryivision, hich s certainlyot estrictedothehalf-man.imilarly,nmyview, here annotbe any nnate niversal rammarccountingorcontradictoryrammaticalules n differentan-guages.What suniversallynnateeems obenotfully eveloped rammaticalr other tructures,butgeneral rinciples,uchas thetendencyoclassifyndtomakehierarchicalistinctions,hatarenot imitedo grammarutappear n manyothermental ields.Most f hesennaterinciplesare notabsolutelyeterminedut existonlyasmental roclivities.here s anenormousumberof suchproclivitiesr"highwaysfthought,"sI havecalled themEichingererro-Luzzi980,1983,1987a)tostresshe act hatheremay eanumericalreponderancemore ravellers)ithoutanydemonstrableonstraintnobody bligesusto takethehighwayather han he more ortu-ous scenicroute). he tendencyn semanticsogroup imilarsndopposites airwise,ometimesembellishinghem hroughhymeralliteration,andthe nventionfcertain ross-culturalimilesandmetaphors aybe cited s cases npoint.To avoid misunderstandingshould ike torepeat hat do not advocate nyeither-or-dis-

Anthropos7.1992


17/17

406 Gabriella ichingererro-Luzzitinction.y showingheextraordinaryredomi-nance of theuniversal ver theculture-specificin a workof ancient amil iterature do notwant o call Whorf otallywrong.My aimhasbeenonly o qualifyventhe weakform f hishypothesis.ccasionallyanguage oes influencethought.ince this nfluenceccurs poradicallyit cannot e predicted;t has to be discoveredempiricallyypainstakingnalysis.nstances fsuch a linguisticnfluencen thoughtrefasci-natingikeexotic ostumesr customs uttheydo notdeterminer nfluencehe peakers' ogicandworldview;or do they onstitute seriousobstacle ounderstandingeople fotherultures.References itedBalasubramaniam,..1962 Tirukkuralf Tiruvalluvar.amilTextand EnglishTranslation ithNotes ndComments.orewordyK. Zvelebil.Madras:Manali akshmana udaliarpe-cific ndowments.Casti,John .1989 Paradigmsost. mages f Man ntheMirrorf Sci-ence.London: cribners.Chidambaranar,vami1969 Tirukkural.ith amil xplanations.adras: tar ub-lications.Chomsky, oam1976 ReflectionnLanguage. lasgow: ontana ooks.Denny, .Peter1979 The"Extendedness"ariablesnClassifieremantics:Universaleatures nd Cultural ariation.n: Made-leineMathioted.),Ethnolinguistics:oas,Sapir, ndWhorf evisited;p. 7-119.TheHague:Mouton.Eichingererro-Luzzi, .1980 TheFemale ngarn:nterchangeableymbolsndPar-adoxicalAssociationsf HinduGods andGoddesses.Currentnthropology1:45-54;62-68.1983 Cool Fire: ulture-SpecifichemesnTamil hort to-ries.Aachen: lano/Herodot.1987a TheSelf-milkingow and heBleeding ingam. riss-cross fMotifsn ndian emple egends.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.1987/? eview fRodney eedham:xemplars.nthropos2:320f.1990

language cultural relativism-tiruvalluvar

Documents