Relationship between a word and its meaning in Indian thought

In Purva Mimansa Darshana, the relationship between a word and its meaning is considered to be natural. The relationship between the word and its meaning is called 'Shakti' which helps one to understand the meaning of the word when it's uttered. The Mimansa view on this subject is also accepted by grammarians who consider the relationship between a word and its meaning to be natural. But what's the natural relationship between, say the word 'cow', and the animal which is referred to by the word? Didn't the animal exist before the word was coined by humans? It did exist. So, how can the relationship be considered to be natural? This objection is solved by Mimansaka-s in two ways:

 

1. They consider the words to be eternal. It's difficult to know the exact origin and how they established this theory as many works of the school have been lost in time. 

2. As the senses have the innate ability to perceive objects, words have the innate ability to capture meaning in themselves because speech is the natural medium of communication.

 

In contrast, Nyaya-Vaishesika considers the relationship between words and their meaning to be conventional. It says that if the relationship were natural, the word would have co-existed with its object. But that is not the case as for example, when we say the word 'water', water doesn't immediately appear. Another argument advanced by Naiyayika-s is that word should have had only one meaning If the relationship between the word and its meaning would have been natural. How can the same word have multiple meanings? So, in Naiyayika's view, the relationship is only conventional. But that convention has been established by the will of Ishvara, not by any human endeavor.

 

Further Reading: Jha, Ganganath: Pūrva Mīmāṃsā in Its Sources (pg. 95-101)