1

Deconstruction of Meaning in Spring and Fall: An Indian Response by

Apava:dam of KCLA
Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, Pradeep Sharma, and Prashant Mishra
Abstract
Derrida is a nihilist. According to nihilism, knowledge is not possible, or reality does not
actually exist. In addition, according to perspectivism of Nietzsche, an aspect of nihilism,
objective metaphysics is impossible and there are no objective facts, nor any knowledge of a
thing in itself; however, the world is knowable “but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no
meaning behind it, but countless meanings”. Consequently, Derrida rejects logocentrism and
wrongly influenced by structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure posits that the meanings in a text
are generated by the relatability of the words and concepts within the text itself and there is
nothing outside the text (Il n‟ye pas hors de texte). Furthermore, he argues that meaning is
deferred intertextually in an indefinite manner. Such a view leads to a free play in meaning-
making since a text can yield multiple meanings and we derive meaning from among them
according to our needs. At large, in practice, it turns the whole exercise of interpretation into a
farce.
According to Ka:rmik Literary Theory, Bhuvaneswar proposes three types of reality: Absolute,
Transient, and Empirical in the tradition of Sri A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:da which are
projected from an underlying reality of all these as the substratum reality. All these three
realities are I-I-I in ka:rmik distribution which is dispositionally generated-specified-directed-
materialized. To explain, each reality can co-exist simultaneously or do not exist relatively in
terms of another reality because of dispositional realization of them. Hence, in KLitT, the world
out there is real and the world in here in the text is in an I-I-I relation with it through the
dispositional creativity of the author. Consequently, when authorial intentionality is not
reasonably and authoritatively available, meaning in the text should be discovered through
apava:dam (negation) of that textual referentiality, indexicality and componentiality (TRIC)
which does not correspond with the experiential possibility (E-P) of the external objective reality
and intertextual authorial intentionality (A-I) in a reasonably psychologically and experientially
plausible manner.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to interpret the poem Spring and Fall written by G.M.
Hopkins in the perspective of deconstruction and then apava:dam of KCLA to show why KCLA is
explanatorily more adequate and psychologically more plausible than a deconstructionist
interpretation.
I. Introduction
According to Derrida, nothing exists outside the text and therefore meaning is to be derived from
within the text by generating meaning through differance (differences and deferment), by
overturning binary oppositions, looking for aporiai, doing sous rature, and finding out traces in
a text. This view is based on nihilism that there is no objective reality, and meaning is possible
only through interpretation which is free play.
This view is considered a myth by itself in the parlance of deconstructive bricolage and has
deconstructed itself as it is formulated because of creating binary oppositions between reality and
unreality where unreality dominates over reality. How can one know unreality when there is no
reality: there must be a subject to know an object. Therefore this view is muddled owing to the
 2

mixing of levels of reality which are absolute, transient, and empirical in KLitT. To explain
further, from an absolute perspective of creation (sort of pre-creation state), there is no world in
existence either physically or mentally. Hence, they are false. In a similar way, each other reality
is false from the perspective of one reality which is real in that state of reality: dream world is
real in the dream and wakeful world is real in the wakeful state – that is why we experience
pleasure and pain in them. Nonetheless, there must and should be an underlying substratum
since all the three realities exist and therefore they must be in it and spring from it as we can
notice from our wakeful-dream-deep sleep state experiences. To explain further, there must be an
awareness to know either that there is something or that there is nothing. Therefore, the
awareness that there is nothing outside the text is in fact OUTSIDE the text in the author or the
reader or the critic. What is more, this awareness is both differentiating as well as differentiated:
it differentiates the external or internal world into this and that as so and so in such and such
manner; it is also differentiated in turn as this and that awareness as so and so awareness in such
and such manner of being aware. Hence, there must and should be a differentiator of this
awareness. It is called Chaitanyam in Ve:danta and Consciousness in Ka:rmik Literary Theory.
What that reality is can be debated but its existence cannot be denied since we do exist in this
empirical, transient and absolute reality; in linguistic terms, we can debate about what is hot and
cold but we cannot deny the very existence of temperature in this empirical world; we can argue
about the number of ways of walking as expressed in language (say, in Tangqul, there are more
than 50 ways) but we cannot deny walking itself as action.
Derrida and nihilists misunderstood this phenomenon because of predominance of Tamas in
their analyticity and missed the tree for the wood: since in absolute terms, there is no world of
objectivity, they thought that there is no world of objectivity in the empirical reality also which
is false and against our experience. When there is no external reality, who is organizing
logocentrism into the poem, who is organizing the poem itself into its form-function-content in a
particular style as contextual action by lingual action through socioculturalspirituality by
dispositionality? When there is no external reality, who is decentring logocentrism? It is the
poet, it is the critic but there is no poet, no critic outside, according to deconstruction a la
nihilism and cynicism which deny any objective reality; it is only the text by itself that is
decentring the logocentrism, that is organizing itself! Also, in such a scenario, who controls the
reader‟s response since reader is another construct without any objective reality? This is a clear
failure in imagination which is taken as a great insight by another failure in imagination. Hence,
in KLitT, the world out there is real and the world in here in the text is in an I-I-I relation with it
through the dispositional creativity of the author. To explain further, what is there in the text is a
representation of what is outside the text as primary, basic meaning; and whatever new
meanings are suggested by relationship with other words are secondary, derived meanings
from the basic meaning in the context of the text, i.e., the context of the text is derived from the
context of the outside world (real, possible, or even imaginary).
Most significantly, both the primary meaning and the secondary meaning are dispositionally
created-specified-directed-materialized in a real context which is outside the text and they are
used as a resource for the construction of the literary (poetic) ka:rmik reality of the ka:rmik actor
(poet/critic/reader) for his ultimate aparo:ksha ka:vyarasa:nubhu:ti of the results of interpretation.
Hence, the ka:rmik actor can never be ignored since he is the creator of those meanings that are
generated within the text by relatability through his Poetic Creative Capability (PCC). Of course,
his Poetic Compositional Capability (PCoC) impacts ( ) on his PCC and further determines the
Architecture of the Created Poem (ACP).
(1) PCoC PCC ACP Textual Meaning Dispositional Interpretation of Meaning
 3

Different Meanings as Results of Interpretation Aparo:ksha Ka:vyarasa:nubhu:ti

Consequently, when authorial intentionality is available, meaning should be constructed by
a:dhya:sam as explained in Bhuvaneswar 2012 b and c and it has been shown there why
deconstruction will be misleading in such cases. When authorial intentionality is not reasonably
and authoritatively available, meaning in the text should be discovered through textual
referentiality, indexicality and componentiality (TRIC) with reference to experiential possibility
and intertextual authorial intentionality to interpret the textual meaning in a reasonably
psychologically and experientially plausible manner in the framework of US Creation.
In this paper, the model of constructing meaning by apava:dam is taken to interpret Spring and
Fall and show the shortcomings of deconstruction of the same text.

II. Literature Review

A detailed review of deconstruction is carried out in Bhuvaneswar 2012 a, b, and c and so it is
not done here again. In addition, the problem of nihilism is already discussed above and so need
not be repeated again to establish the basis for this paper.

III. Deconstruction of Meaning in Spring and Fall: A KCLA by Apava:dam

3. 1. The Poem Spring and Fall by Gerald Manley Hopkins
Spring and Fall: to a Young Child
Margaret, are you grieving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leaves, like the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Ah! as the heart grows older
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And you will weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name:
Sorrow‟s springs are the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed:
It is the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for

3. 2. Interpretation of Spring and Fall by Deconstruction

3. 2. 1. Summary of the Poem by Interpretation of Literal Meaning
The poet (or the Speaker in the poem) addresses a child named Margaret and asks her whether
she is grieving about the Goldengrove losing its leaves as winter comes. And he feels that the
child in her innocence cares about the leaves as much as about the affairs of people. He then
reflects that as she grows older she will not care even when an entire forest will shed all the
leaves. However, she will still grieve for her own mortality.
3. 2. 2. Summary of the Poem by Deconstruction
The deconstruction project without a method, without an analysis, and without a critique
performs deconstruction on the principles of overturning binary oppositions, looking for aporia
 4

and turning them into the center, establishing differences by relating the concepts within the text
without reference to any objective reality. Let us apply these concepts to make a meaning out of
the poem Spring and Fall.
3. 2. 2. 1. Overturning the Binary Oppositions in Spring and Fall To a Young Child
At the very beginning itself, Spring and Fall as the poem is titled invites us to overturn the
logocentric binary opposition between spring and fall. In the logocentric view, spring is the more
dominant term (Td) in a violent hierarchy with autumn which is suppressed (Ts). If we have to
follow the deconstructionist approach, the first task is to reverse the order of the title of the poem
in to Autumn and Spring but there is an aporia left by the poet: he chose the American dialectal
equivalent Fall instead of Autumn. So we have a reinforced deconstruction feature in the title
itself. Consequently, instead of looking at the poem from the perspective of Spring dominating
the theme of the poem and suppressing the other view, which is Autumn, a deconstructionist
would like to look at the poem from the perspective of Fall, instead of Spring or Autumn, which
will become the Fall of Man by the end of the poem. Since Derrida thinks that “texts are really
about what they appear not to be about, and he searches for weak points, or fractures where the
otherness, aporiai, that texts conceal become apparent” (see Bhuvaneswar 2012 b: 5), let us posit
that the poem is really about what it appears not to be and so it should not be about Spring but
Autumn; however, autumn is replaced by Fall and so it should be about Fall as it will become
clear as the text unfolds its structure. But in doing so, the critic is going against deconstruction,
for Fall is hardcore logocentric!
In the following network, the three views of logocentrism, deconstruction, and ka:rmik
centrism are captured for an easy understanding of the processes. If logocentrism is overturned in
deconstruction, the positions are turned around by I-I-Iing them in a radial process around the
Ka:rmik Centre as centripetal forces.
T1 Legend: KC Ka:rmik Centre

Ts (Autumn) Td (Spring)
Td Ts KC •
Tn T2 I-I-Ied leads to is overturned

Logocentric View Deconstruction View Ka:rmik-centric View

Network 1. Network of Configuration of Positions
Again, looking at the content of the poem, we notice that there are three motifs linked together
in spatial and temporal sequence. First, we have the child grieving over the Goldengrove (first
four lines); second, we have the child as an adult not grieving over even the shedding of leaves
by forests (next four lines); and third, we have the mourning over mortality as a motif: “It is the
blight man was born for, / It is Margaret you mourn for” (the last seven lines: „sestet‟ of the
Italian Sonnet). From an analysis of the movement of the theme of the poem, we notice that two
thirds of the poem is moving towards the theme of mortality (from line 5 onwards to the line 15
at the end), culminating in: “It is Margaret you mourn for”, i.e., mourning for “blight” or
mortality, and not about shedding of leaves in autumn. This is again a logocentric theme of
Christianity, about the Fall of Man. Therefore, the aporia should be fixed in the minor part of the
poem which should be antilogocentric but the minor part which is, which is in this case, spring is
also logocentric, and has nothing to do with „sorrow‟, which idea is supported by the dubious
title: Spring and Fall. Therefore, there is a self-contradiction in the principle of overturning
binary oppositions: from the perspective of the word Fall as Autumn, the binary oppositions are
between Spring and Autumn as seasons and therefore the dominant term spring should be
overturned; from the perspective of grieving, grieving for mortality is the dominant motif and
 5

therefore it should be overturned in favour of spring. This is self-contradiction caused by

derivation of meaning by relatability of words: by overturning spring, you are landing in Fall
which is hardcore logocentric – deconstruction is supporting what it is fighting against by a
suicidal action; second, it is mocking at the very idea of turning over binary oppositions: on the
one hand, you are overturning spring for Fall and on the other hand, you are overturning Fall in
favour of spring! [What is worse is that in deconstruction both spring and autumn are reduced to
concepts without any objective reality in a text and their meaning is derived by relatability. Even
that way, there is a binary opposition between spring and autumn, between leafing and
unleaving; grieving and enjoying; sorrow and joy without any contradiction in the terms but the
procedure of overturning the oppositions causes the contradiction; so the above mentioned
argument still holds good.] This so called undecidability and eternal play of differences is due to
a failure in the procedure itself, making a mockery of human intelligence, making the created
(i.e., the poem as a text) superior to the creator (i.e., the poet) which is illogical, taking the
gullible readers for a ride which is irresponsible and uncalled for. It is advocating confusion at
the cost of reason and reality!
3. 2. 2. 2. Grieving as an Aporia
There are two motifs in the poem: one about the child grieving about the “Goldengrove
unleaving”, about falling of leaves in autumn; and the second about the same child as an adult
not caring about forests shedding leaves: “nor spare a sigh/Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal
lie”. There is an apparent self-contradiction in these two ideas: How could a person as a sensitive
child crying over the falling of autumnal leaves not cry insensitively about the falling of leaves in
whole forests? Therefore, there is an aporia which should be resolved? But there is
undecidability about the aporia itself. Is it the first or the second motif? If it is the first, the
second is irrational and vice versa. Is the poet a schizophrenic or is it intentional? If it is
intentional, what is the intentionality? If we posit that the child by becoming an adult will realize
that there is a cyclic rejuvenation in Nature and therefore it is foolish to grieve for the leaves,
then that knowledge cannot be discovered within the text without going out into the external
world of objectivity. So, the only possible way out of this problem is to go outside the text and
seek it if it is available. By going outside the text, the deconstructionist critic has disobeyed
deconstruction principles! Indeed, it is there outside the text as will be shown in the next two
sections and he exclaims a la Bhuvaneswar: Everything is outside the text!
Again, why did Hopkins chose Fall instead of Autumn? Did he choose it because he has
intended to leave it deliberately as an aporia so that the reader will not think of this poem as
merely about a little child grieving about the falling of leaves in autumn, or did he get simply
fascinated and carried away by American English? If it were merely a fascination for American
English, then how can we explain another aporia in choosing the word goldengrove with a
capital letter at the beginning: Goldengrove? If this choice merely refers to a specific place, then
what is it? How do we know about it? We have no clue but using the relatability of words in the
text a la bricolage, we can make a guess about it. That takes us to the so-called dissemination of
the meanings spread out indefinitely from one signifier to another signifier.
3. 2. 2. 3. Dessemination of Fall, Goldengrove and Ghost
Are there any other clues that may relate to these two words and lead us to know what is inside
the poem? We find a passage in the end:
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed:
It is the blight man was born for,
 6

It is Margaret you mourn for

This reminds us of the Biblical passage:
“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man” (The Holy Bible:
Corinthians 2:9) in which Paul was talking about good news but here Hopkins is talking about
bad news.
There is another passage from the Holy Bible which uses the image of a leaf reminding us of
unleaving, and leafmeal:
“We do all fade as a leaf; and our inequities like the wind have taken us away” (Isaiah 64:6).
Still one more passage from the Old Testament is also echoed in the word Fall in the poem:
“For all flesh is grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and
the flower thereof falleth away” (Peter 1: 24, quoting Isaiah 40: 6-8). All these Biblical
references are echoed in the poem. [All Biblical quotations are borrowed from Copyright ©
crossref-it.info 2012]. This textual evidence is surely against deconstruction, only to destroy it by
re-centering logocentrism as discussed below!
3. 2. 2. 4. Recentering Logocentrism by Destruction of Deconstruction
The deconstructionist‟s motto is: Decentre the logos, but by decentring the logos the critic re-
centered it and made a self-goal! Instead of discovering a contradiction in the oppositions, he
discovered a contradiction in the deconstruction principle of decentering the logos itself. This
poem, according to his discovery, is not about Spring and Fall but it is about the Fall of Man in
Eden which is the Goldengrove and so it is hardcore logocentrism! What the deconstructionist
wants to deny is disproved by what he got! The horse rides the rider! Again, in the KCLA
parlance, what he wrote is what he thought and what he thought is grounded in Christ and then in
Isaiah, Peter and Paul and then in the Holy Bible. So, there is an objective reality! Again, the
KCLA critic exclaims, “Forget about the terms... they are constructs but go out! See the Spring
... See the Autumn..... You cannot deny both leafing and unleafing as a phenomenon... Call it by
any name but you cannot deny the phenomenon in this phenomenal world!”
Now, having critiqued deconstruction, let us see in the next section how KCLA fares.
3. 3. Spring and Fall: KCLA by Apava:dam (De-superimposition or Ablation)
According to Ve:da:ntasa:ra of Sada:nanda, “As a snake falsely perceived in a rope is ultimately
found out to be nothing but the rope, similarly, the world of unreal things, beginning with
ignorance, superimposed on Reality is realized, at the end, to be nothing but Brahman. This is
known as de-superimposition” (Sada:nanda‟s Ve:da:ntasa:ra: IV, 137, p.81). This apava:dam
(de-superimposition) is the opposite of a:dhya:sa (superimposition), also called a:dhya:ro:pah,
which is in the words of Sri: A:di Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:dah, Smritiru:pah paratra pu:rva
drushTa:vabha:sah „The apparent recognition of something previously observed in some other
thing‟.
This Principle of Apava:dam is the second technique that has been inspired from Sri: A:di
Samkara Bhagavatpu:jyapa:dah to interpret a poem, in our case, Spring and Fall, on the
assumption that we do not have any reasonably authoritative evidence of poetic intentionality. A
detailed discussion of apava:dam is not done here since it is already made in Bhuvaneswar 2012
b and c in this book and so the reader is referred to those articles.
The technique of apava:dam is applied in five stages:
1. Analysis of the Poem into FCFSCtt; 2. I-I-Iing the NwN-AWFF;
3. Troubleshooting by Apava:dam; 4. Va:dam of the E-P Meanings
 7

5. Construction of Poetic Cognemes and Ka:rmemes by using the effect-to-cause inference logic
within the scope of Socioculturalspiritual Acceptability and Experiential Possibility of Universal
Science of Creation (US C).
In addition, apava:dam also takes into consideration Poetic Creative Capability (PCC) and
Poetic Compositional Capability (PCoC) as well as Architecture of the Created Poem (ACP).
PCC is the capacity for dispositional creativity in the creation of a poem – it is gounded in the
quality of traits, the variety-range-depth of knowledge, and the poetic skills (va:sana:s) in using
the knowledge to suit the traits to bring in the required appeal (formal-functional-cognitive-
dispositional-experiential). PCoC is the ability to execute the intended Pattern and Structure of
the Poem in the required Form. According to the strength of PCoC, a poem is materialized: if it
is strong, we get perfect artistic creations; if not, weak ones. Thus, some poems click and endure
while some others do not in spite of their creative ideas. ACP is the design of the poem as a
product of PCC.
What is more, KCLA can be partial or complete to suit the needs of the critic. When we want
to look at a particular feature of the basic components of a poem, we can use it only for that
specific purpose. In such a case, it leads to a partial KCLA; on the other hand, if the entire
variety, range, and depth of the basic components of a poem are interpreted, it becomes complete
KCLA. Let us apply apava:dam along these stages and see how we overcome the contradiction
raised by deconstruction by a partial KCLA of Content (Theme) owing to constraints of space.
3. 3. 1. Analysis of the Poem into FCFSCott
In Bhuvaneswar 2012 b, two networks for the Basic Components of a Poem are provided in
networks 3 a and b (p.12-13). According to these networks there are five components which are:
1. Form; 2. Content; 3. Function; 4. Style; and 5. Context (FCFSCott). For the purpose of our
analysis, let us concentrate on the Content of the poem Spring and Fall.
3. 3. 1. 1. Analysis of Content of Spring and Fall by Apava:dam
The Content of a poem according to the Basic Components of a Poem can be broadly divided
into two sections: 1. Semantics and Rhetoric. Under Semantics, we study the Propositional
Content of a Poem. The propositional content can deal with four types of content: 1. Material
Phenomena; 2. Mental Phenomena which can be Intellectual, Emotional, and Delusional; 3.
Social Phenomena which can be Social, Cultural, and Religious; and 4. Spiritual. Again, these
four types of content can be mixed with more than one of these combined together. Under
Rhetoric, we can deal with Discipline which is again divided into Subject and Topic; Theme
which is again divided into Category, Structure, Ideology, and Authorial Point of View; Motif,
Symbol; and Leitwortstil.
When we know the authorial intentionality, interpreting the content of the poem is simple
since A-I functions as a beacon to show us the path to understand the meaning. Whether we
agree with what the poet says is not the issue here. However, when A-I is not available, we have
to depend solely on the text of the poem to know its meaning. In other words, interpretation
becomes text-centered instead of author-centered. Now, the challenge is to interpret the text
which is not easy since meaning is generally created in a complex way; adding fuel to fire,
language is capable of multiple meanings owing to its inherent tendency for polysemy either
lexically or figuratively as it is dispositionally created by Individual-Collective-Contextual-
Conjunction of Lingual Action (ICCCLA). Now, let us try to fix the meaning of Spring and Fall
and find out how we can highlight the intended meaning of the poet and the poem.
3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. Propositional Content: Literal (Referential) Meaning
 8

From a reading of the poem Spring and Fall, from a literal meaning point of view, we
understand that the ka:rmikscape (the experiential scope of the poem in terms of the FCFSCtt)
can be profiled as follows: a. The propositional content is mixed and spans across two levels of
the propositional content which are [material-mental] since the falling of the leaves in autumn is
a material phenomenon, and the melancholic experience of the child is a mental phenomenon.
3. 3. 1. 1. 1. 2. Propositional Content: Symbolic Meaning
When we look at the literal meaning of the poem as symbolic, we notice the choice of words,
from a stylistic point of view, from the perspective of Form and Language as a part of it (see
Network 3b in Bhuvaneswar 2012 b), we see the choice of the word Fall instead of Autumn and
Goldengrove (a neologism) as well as ghost as symbolic. The images of spring and fall point out
to something which is not just a matter of the seasons but more than that; so we have to find out
what is that. Spring in the traditional thinking points to life and freshness and autumn points to
death and decay. In addition, we have words such as grieve, sorrow and heart. So we can say
that the poet is reflecting on life and death through spring and fall. If we go a little further and
look for similar thinking, in the poem, some passages echo Biblical thinking as pointed out in
Dissemination above. Therefore, these words index a new meaning that might be intended.
Consequently we speculate on a religious and spiritual meaning to the poem. So this
propositional content might also deal with [religious-spiritual] content. Combining the literal and
symbolic interpretations we find that the propositional content is mixed and spans across
[material-mental-religious-spiritual] phenomena.

Material
Mental Unleaving Grieving Grief over Mortality
Propositional
Content Religious ● ●
Spiritual
Fall and Mortality
Network 2: Spring and Fall Propositional Content Network 3. Margaret’s Grief over Mortality Network

[This kind of interpretation is not a special feature of deconstruction, nor of KCLA. In fact, it
is very much a part of traditional interpretation which is author oriented. So there is nothing new
in the concept of aporia and dissemination except their distortion under antilogocentrism and
differance. However, in KCLA, this traditional interpretation is extended to a new dimension of
more intensive, more systematic, and (w)holistic analysis by fixing it in a rigorously defined
ka:rmik linguistic theoretical model bound by a theory-procedure-techniques, by I-I-Iing A-I,
TRIC, RR, and E-P within the framework of Universal Science of Creation, and by evaluating
PCC and PCoC in the framework of ACP. In addition, networks, figures, and equations are
drawn to capture and explain the theory, procedure, and techniques – which is unique and
original to KCLA – with more descriptive and explanatory adequacy and psychologically more
plausible, clear, definite, explicit and elaborate cognitive processing of the poem through the
construction of five realities, through the gradual evolution of disposition into desire into effort
into poetic action into its result and finally into its experience in a cause-means-effect model
which is missing in traditional interpretation. Traditional interpretation is more concerned with
the formal features of language such as imagery, symbolism, tone, voice, figures of speech,
prosody, and special language in an impressionistic analysis but has not considered how a poem
evolves in a cognitive spectrum, what linguistic functions the text performs, how the poem
acts/reacts in the context where disposition rules supreme and not vice versa in a clearly
 9

designed framework. It is like a horse running in the wild by trial and error method to reach the
destination whereas KCLA is a dressage-trained horse with specific routes and goals.]
Having identified the nature of the propositional content, the next step is to look at the
rhetorical content of the poem Spring and Fall.
3. 3. 1.1. 2. Analysis of Rhetorical Content
3. 3. 1. 1. 2. 1-5. Discipline and Themes in Spring and Fall
1. Discipline: The subject of the poem Spring and Fall is as the title indicates Nature and the
topic is Human Relationship with Nature.
2-5. Theme-Motif-Symbol-Leitwortstil: The main theme is melancholy, lachrymae rerum, „the
tearfulness of things‟ which belongs to the phenomenal category of the transience of humanity
with two motifs of a little child Margaret grieving over the falling of leaves in autumn and
another motif of Margaret not grieving over the „unleaving‟ of forests when she becomes an
adult; in addition, there is one more motif which occupies the entire second part (sestet) of the
sonnet of fifteen lines: mortality, Fall of Man. The theme is developed by a:dhya:sam of one
theme over another theme through carefully chosen propositional content, lexis, and syntax at the
sub-level of Language in Form (see networks 3a and 3b in Bhuvaneswar 2012 b for the choice of
these features in the Basic Components of a Poem). The structure of the theme is three layered
with each motif forming one layer. Again, there is a spatio-temporal movement of one motif
leading to another motif: the movement of childhood-to-old age of Margaret forms the temporal
sequence of the motifs; the movement of falling leaves of a tree-to-a forest-to- the blight of man
forms the spatial sequence. There is a logic of human psychology of emotions I-I-Ied with ageing
under the Universal Science of Living in US of Creation which is a-rational: when you cry over
falling leaves as a child, you (as a grown up person) should also cry for forests unleaving as a
whole but you don‟t because by ageing, you might have probably understood one secret of
Nature, of the truth about recycling of life and death through decay.
In the process of developing the theme, you hear the voice of the speaker, (may be the poet?):
Margaret, are you grieving/Over Goldengrove unleaving? is a direct question that opens up the
poem; and It is the blight man was born for,/ It is Margaret you mourn for is a representative
(assertive) speech act that closes the poem as the answer. Significantly, there is syntactic
parallelism to fix the meaning and thus link the mourning of Margaret as a child with the
mourning of Margaret as an adult via another assertive: Sorrow‟s springs are the same – springs
is chosen instead of origins or causes or some other word: what a subtle choice to allude to
spring! This perhaps leads to the ideology of the speaker!
In order to know the authorial point of view, we need to know what the author said regarding
this poem but it is not available to us. Therefore, we have to study the author‟s point of view on
similar matters and interpret this view in terms of that known view of the author. The discussion
of the authorial point of view will be taken up in Troubleshooting by Apava:dam and Va:dam by
E-P Meanings in the coming sections.
3. 3. 2. I-I-Iing the NwN-AWFF
Having done an analysis of the Content of the poem Spring and Fall, we are now in a position to
identify the networks that are designed by the poet for the poem and how they are
interconnected-interrelated-interdepended (I-I-Ied) as networks-within-networks (NwN) in an
atomic-wholistic functional framework (AWFF).
As already discussed above in 3. 3. 1. Analysis of the Poem into FCFSCott, we are able to
identify three networks from the three layers of the propositional content: 1. The little child
Margaret grieving over the falling of leaves in autumn. This layer can be considered the Nature
 10

Layer; 2. Margaret not grieving over the „unleaving‟ of forests when she becomes an adult. This
layer can be considered the Human Psychology Layer since it deals with the emotional aspect of
melancholy (grieving vs not grieving); and 3. Mortality, Fall of Man. This layer can be
considered Spiritual and Religious, in this case, Biblical Spirituality. They are interconnected
and interrelated in a spatiotemporal sequence as already discussed. Furthermore, the third
network is not only spatiotemporally interconnected-interrelated but also made interdependent by
a:dhya:sam of specially and purposefully selected words and syntactic patterns as well as
organization of the structure of discourse of the text by a question at the beginning and an answer
to that question in the end. Furthermore, the ideology of the speaker is also superimposed by the
use of vocatives for Margaret. What is more, the choice of the name Margaret gives the poem
empirical facticity and grounding in this world as a real event – we don‟t know whether Margaret
is a real character in our real world or a fictitious character in the imaginary world. We can group
networks 1 and 2 under a bigger network as networks-within-a network and can call it
Margaret‟s Autumnal Grief Network; This network will become a network within another bigger
network which we can call Margaret‟s Grief over Mortality Network (See Network 2, p.11).
These NwNs are again in an interconnected-interrelated-interdependent relationship in an
atomic-wholistic functional network. To explain further, we have to revisit the Function
Component of the FCFSCtt Network.
3. 3. 2. 1. The Purpose of the Poem Spring and Fall
In Network 3 a in Bhuvaneswar 2012 b, Function is divided into: 1. Function and Purpose.
Function deals with the different speech act functions that the poetic utterances in sentences,
phrases, and words perform and purpose deals with how these speech acts contribute to the
instantiation of the stated or unstated purpose known from reasonable and authoritative evidence
about the poet‟s intentionality from his interviews, etc. (see Bhuvaneswar 2012 b and c in this
book for elaborate details on this topic). We will also know whether it has any didactic purpose
or it is merely artistic in its intention or there is no real purpose at all except that of writing it
because the poet wants to write the poem.
From the KCLA done so far of the content, we can infer three purposes under one major
purpose: 1. To comment on the grieving of Margaret over unleaving at a smaller individual scale
of a tree or trees as a child; 2. To speculate about her not grieving over unleaving at a larger
collective scale of a forest as an adult; and 3. To evaluate her grieving at large over mortality.
Finally, all these three purposes are achieved under one overall purpose of establishing the
relationship between nature and man (through the Great Fall of Man in the Christian ideological
framework of God and His creation as it will be shown later in apava:dam and va:dam).
However, we do not know the exact focus of the poet: Is his intention to talk about unleaving, or
grieving, or Falling from grace? since we have no access to his intentionality from outside the
text. As a result, we have to discover this authorial intentionality from other sources, if they can
be of some help – that is the only way out.
3. 3. 2. Speech Act Functions in Spring and Fall
The poem is in fifteen lines with two questions and five assertives. The poet designs the poem, in
terms of style of function (see network 3 a in Bhuvaneswar 2012 b for the network of style), as a
poetic conversational exchange between the speaker and Margaret with the speaker alone talking
and Margaret listening silently without responding. He chooses an elicit/inform exchange with a
single turn which consists of two rhetorical questions and five assertives. The poet introduces the
problem (namely, grief of the child Margaret over the falling of autumnal leaves of a tree(s))
through the first two questions, complicates it by how it transforms into non-grief over forests
 11

unleaving en masse and then into inexplicable grief through four assertive speech acts. Finally,
he resolves the complication at the end by answering what that inexplicable grief is: grief over
mortality through the last assertive speech act.
Interestingly, both the questions come at the beginning one after the other in two sentences and
four lines. The first question: Margaret, are you grieving/Over Goldengrove unleaving? is
rhetorical with an affirmative answer: Yes, I know you are grieving over Goldengrove unleaving.
Having answered the question by itself, he asks the second question in a similar way rhetorically
with a negative answer: Leaves, like the things of man, you/With your fresh thoughts care for,
can you? No, you can‟t care for the things of man ...when you grow old. And in the next
assertive speech act comments on the enormous number of such things of man: Ah! as the heart
grows older/It will come to such sights colder/By and by, nor spare a sigh/Though worlds of
wanwood leafmeal lie;.Having commented on the things of man, he initiates a new topic about
the apparent transformation of the grief of the little child into the grief of Margaret as an adult in
future by the next two assertive speech acts: 1. And you will weep and know why. ; 2. Now no
matter, child, the name: Sorrow‟s springs are the same. “Hopkins wrote most frequently in the
sonnet form. He generally preferred the Italian or Petrarchan sonnet, which consists of an octave
followed by a sestet, with a turn in argument or change in tone occurring in the second part.
Hopkins typically uses the octave to present some account of personal or sensory experience and
then employs the sestet for philosophical reflection.” (SparkNote Hopkins‟ Poetry 17 October,
2012). Then, he explains how the grief is experienced: Nor mouth had, no nor mind,
expressed/What héart héard of, ghóst guéssed: and finally answers what that grief is: It is the
blight man was born for,/It is Margaret you mourn for. [see Bhuvaneswar 2012 d for detailed
networks of discourse (conversational exchanges) – they are not given here for want of space.]
From the above discussion, we notice that the seven speech acts as poetic texts mentioned
above embody ( ) the pattern and structure of the poetic conversational exchange which in turn
embodies the overall purpose of the poem which is intended by the poet but not directly known
to us.
(2) Seven Speech Acts P&S of P. C. E Purpose of Spring and Fall
These speech acts mark the movement and development of the theme from three angles: 1.
Unleaving (by Nature); 2. Grieving (by Margaret); and 3. (The Great) Fall (of Man) and
Mortality. All these three angles are I-I-Ied through the speech acts in Network 3 shown in p. 8.
In addition, speech acts also give us clues to speaker intentionality by virtue of their structure
in discourse. For example, in Spring and Fall, the poem is initiated with a question and ends with
an answer. Since it is a poetic, monologue-ic conversational exchange with a question move as
the initiation of the exchange which ends with an answer, we can reasonably say that the answer
reflects the speaker‟s intentionality.
There are multiple meanings in Spring and Fall and we have no reasonably authoritative
evidence of poetic intentionality; so, we have to do apava:dam as done in the next section to
tease out the best meaning out of the given alternatives by negating and discarding those
inappropriate meanings which are reflected through textual referentiality, indexicality, and even
componentiality.
3. 3. 3. Troubleshooting by Apava:dam
After conducting an analysis of the Poem into FCFSCtt and I-I-Iing the NwN-AWFF,
troubleshooting by Apava:dam should be started to eliminate socioculturalspirital contextually
impossible or implausible multiple-meaning interpretations as not this, not this – experiential
possibilities and intertextuality are used as checks to control negatively the troubleshooting and
 12

problem-identification process. In this process to that extent free play is controlled and
minimized if not eliminated (see Bhuvaneswar 2012 b for more details).
So far from our analysis, we have identified three different perspectives from which the poem
can be intepreted: 1. Nature ; 2. Human Psychology; and 3. Biblical Spirituality. These three
perspectives, again, generate a set of systemic choices by highlighting one perspective and
deriving the other two from it. To elaborate, the Biblial perspective of the Fall of Man may be
derived from either the perspective of Nature or Human Psychology; so also the other
perspectives. These options are captured in the following network.
Psychological Biblical
Natural
Biblical Psychological
Perspectives for Natural Biblical
Multiple Meanings Psychological
Biblical Natural
Natural Psychological
Biblical
Psychological Natural
Other Perspectives
Network 4: Network for Deriving Multiple Meanings in Spring and Fall
Let us take each perspective and see what meaning can be considered appropriate from that
perspective and negate those perspectives which are in appropriate by apava:dam.
1. Natural Perspective: The title as well as half of the poem is concerned with the shedding of
autumnal leaves. Therefore, this perspective appears to be the central perspective. However, as
we see how this perspective is worked out, we notice that it gets transformed in a very subtle
manner by the superimposition of certain lexical, grammatical and semantic stylistic features.
For example, Fall is chosen instead of Autumn; Goldengrove (neologism) is chosen with a
capital letter instead of a garden or any other grove; ghost is chosen instead of spirit or soul.
These words echo Christian theological concepts. In a similar way, syntactic parallelism for the
last two lines is also significant. Furthermore, there are some sentences that echo the Holy Bible.
By a superimposition of these features onto the text, the perspective of the text alters like a
chamelion changing its colours. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that ne:ti...ne:ti...ne:ti
„not this...not this...not this (natural perspective)‟ is the chosen perspective of the author to
convey the meaning; and so kill it with the Trishu:l pointing the poet-knowledge-poem prongs
downwards instead of upwards to show that the intention-knowledge- text are wrongly derived.
But then there is one secondary and one tertiary option: Natural – Psychological / Biblical; and
Natural-Psychological-Biblical/ Natural-Biblical-Psychological. When we look at the secondary
option Natural-Psychological perspective, we quickly notice that in this perspective, there is no
scope for a Biblical interpretation. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that ne:ti...ne:ti...ne:ti
„not this...not this...not this (natural-psychological perspective)‟ is the chosen perspective of the
author to convey the meaning. So also is the natural-Biblical perspective, because the
psychological aspect of grieving-not grieving is not taken care of in this perspective. So, we
come to the conclusion that ne:ti...ne:ti...ne:ti „not this...not this...not this (natural-Biblical
perspective)‟ by killing it with the trishu:l in a similar way. Finally, we go to the tertiary level
option of Natural-Psychological-Biblical perspective. Here, we notice that the psychological
layer is superimposed on the natural layer by the insertion of the psychological state words such
as grieving, thoughts, sigh, weep, Sorrow‟s, mind, and mourn which express states of emotion.
There are more words about mental states than Biblical words and they are both verbs and nouns
 13

unlike the Biblical words which are nouns only. So we come to the conclusion that this might be
the perspective of the author since he chose Spring and Fall as the base on which he
superimposed melancholy and on that Biblical concepts. Hence, we don‟t kill it with the trishu:l.
We check this interpretation against the intertextual evidence from the poet as well as his
general style of writing poetry, his overall mission, his common practices, etc. and see if this
interpretation fits into that pattern and if so, why so and if not, why not. Hopkins writes on
nature, religion, and the inner anguish of human beings. According to his thinking about nature,
“the world is like a book written by God. In this book God expresses himself completely, and it
is by „reading‟ the world that humans can approach God and learn about Him.” (SparkNotes, 17
October, 2012). But we don‟t stop there and we go on conducting this type of ne:ti...ne:ti...ne:ti
analysis for other features also.
2. At the psychological layer level, we negate it because if it were psychological level based as
the focus, we get a different emphasis: instead of Spring and Fall, we woud have some title such
as Autumnal Melancholy, or some other title like that to emphasize the psychological aspect of
the poem;
3. in a similar way, we negate the Biblical Level base also since the title would have been solely
a Biblical one like The Fall of Man, etc. Having eliminated all the implausible, and anti-textual
perspectives including any other perspectives such as the Derridean, Freudian, etc. and settling
down on one perspective which is the Natural-Psychological-Biblical perspective, we go to the
next stage of va:dam.
4. Va:dam of the E-P Meanings
After apava:dam is carried out, the left out options which are considered to be reasonable
interpretations of the text within ka:rmik centrism are further subjected to the affirmation process
(va:dam) by checking them positively as This is it... This is it...This is it again in the matrix of
socioculturalspiritual acceptability and experiential possibilty. The interpretation that Hopkins
has used the Natural-Psychological-Religious (Biblical) perspective is attested by critics about
his writings: he writes about nature, religion, and anguish. Furthermore, by the Principle of
Superimposition, this type of cognitive processing is possible and can be explained in a
principled manner using the TGCA graphs (as given in Bhuvaneswar 2012 c: 8). Therefore, this
is the perspective of the poet in writing Spring and Fall. We can capture this process in a triple-
central prong trishu:lik network as shown below in the next page.
This network 5 is an extension of the Network 1 in Bhuvaneswar (2012 c: 2). In this network,
the central prong diversifies into two more stars –one on the left and one on the right side of the
central star. The central star is the base star which is the knowledge of Nature in the poem and on
this star the knowledge of anguish (psychology) and the knowledge of religion and spirituality
(Bible) are superimposed to project the multidimensional meaning of the poem. When the whole
poem is cognized as a unified cogneme, all the three stars merge into a single star with these two
motifs as twinkles in the unified star cogneme.
5. Construction of Poetic Cognemes and Ka:rmemes
Once the poetic intentionality is established as this and that to be so and so in such and such
manner, the job of the critic is made straight and clear. He will use the TGCA Graph (as in
Bhuvaneswar 2012 c) and motivate the cogneme-cognition of the content of the poem starting
from the first quadrant where the poetic impulsion and desire are motivated. They are then
processed through the second and fourth quadrants to be projected in the third quadrant as the
cogneme of the content of the poem Spring and Fall in terms of Poetic Creative Capability.
Finally, it is evaluated by the construction of Spring and Fall ka:rmeme (see Bhuvaneswar 2012
 14

c: 15 for details) and experienced: Oh! This is what the poet meant! This is how he meant it!
This why he meant it! How wonderful!/ What a failure!/What a confusion!, etc. .
Knowledge (Nature)
Motif
Theme Symbol
Discipline Leitwortstil
Knowledge (Anguish) Knowledge (Bible)
Motif Motif
Theme Symbol Theme Symbol
Discipline Leitwortstil Discipline Leitwortstil

Motivation Seed

Composition Production Sprout Tree

Poet Poem
•

Critic Reader
•
.

Network 5: Poet-Triple Knowledge-Poem Network

Disposition
The entire process of poetic creation and its experience ka:rmemikally is captured in the poetic
chakram network of gradual evolution of a poem. As it is already reviewed by the Editor
Prashant Mishra in the Introduction (see p. ), it is not given here again for want of space.
IV. Conclusion
The analysis of apava:dam conducted above is text-centered and depends heavily on textual
clues to discover poetic intentionality and then build the meaning of the poem. If there are
multiple meanings, the critic I-I-Is them to arrive at a meaning which does not indulge in free
play but explores experiential possibilities within the textual limitations and confirms them from
outside intertextual and authorial sources.

References
Bhuvaneswar, Chilukuri (2012 a). “Deconstruction and Logocentrism: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Perspective”.
Language Forum.
________ (2012 b). “Deconstruction of a Poem I: A Ka:rmik Linguistic Perspective”. Language
Forum.
________ (2012 c). “Deconstruction of a Poem 2: A KCLA of A Vision by A:dhya:sam.” Language
Forum.
________ (2012 d). “Speech Act Theory And Proverbial Discourse: A Ka:Rmik Linguistic Analysis”.
In: Scientific Newsletter, Series (2/18). Voronezh: State University of Architecture and Engineering..
Sadananda Yogindra Saraswati (15th Century). Ve:da:ntasa:ra. Translated By Swamy Nikhila:nanda, 2006.
Kolkatta: Advaita:shrama.
SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on Hopkins‟s Poetry.” SparkNotes LLC. 2002.
http://www.sparknotes.com/poetry/hopkins/ (accessed October 17, 2012).