চিনতে যদি পেরেই থাকো. পরিচালনা: সুস্মিতা সিংহ. ক্যামেরা: সব্যসাচী বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়. সম্পাদনা: সুজাতা কুন্ডু. ব্যবস্থাপনা: অমিতাভ সেনগুপ্ত. প্রযোজনা: রূপকলা কেন...
Moslemda, a non-professional metal health care volunteer was interviewed here in this documentary film. The problematic question that was asked here, was "How do we distinguish between error (khyati) and non-error (akhyati), when we are talking about normal and natural language?" From this problematic question, I have started a project:
THE CONCEPT OF ERROR (KHYATI) IN MAD-(WO)MEN’S LANGUAGE
The incidence of this project was a review of a text-- an autobiographical account of Niranjan Bhowmik, a so-called marginalized man, who was categorized as “insane”, which was transcribed and edited by Amit Ranjan Basu and was published by the Bibhasa (2004) and distributed by the Progressive Publishers, Kolkata.The investigator mentioned that this book was an exceptional publication as the editor, a professional Health Care Provider, (a) preserved the so-called (mis) spelling and non-well-formed non-standardized syntactic constructions of Bhowmik, thus Basu did not play the role of language managers/-polices/-judges and celebrated the joy of heterography; (b) did not categorize the “disease” of Bhowmik following any “norm”-al scale. The editor followed the Foucauldian path of anti-Cartesianism in the preface. The investigator maintained that this book would draw the attention of linguists, who were problematizing the boundary between “normal” well-formed language and “abnormal” speaking/writing following Foucault-Derrida polemic on "madness". The investigator questioned, “How do we know the differences between “norm”-al way of speaking and “ab”-normal way of speaking?” Cartesian Linguistics analyzes the algorithm of “normal” “well-formed” sentences only. This very construction of “natural language” (e.g., the well-constructed written sentences) mercilessly marginalizes the language of so-called non-“natural” madness or folly. This question might be elaborated further by taking cue from Goutam Bhadra (who also reviewed this book in Baromas): how do we distinguish between error (khyati) and non-error (akhyati), when we are talking about normal and natural language? Well-formed (?) syntagms are cited in the Chomskian syntactic analysis. There are no paradigmatic recurrences-- there are no dialogues. That is sanity. Let us suffer severe insanity to understand at least the dream stage of madhyama (falser state of speaking in course of dreaming). This text, edited by Amit Ranjan Basu, may open a new avenue in linguistics. What shall linguists do ? Do they deploy discourse analysis here? Cf. http://www.scribd.com/debaprasad_bandyopad/d/74183848-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%96%E0%A6%BE-%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C