Word-meaning Vs. Sentence-meaning

In considering the primal, significant, and most rudiment question 'how to obtain the meaning of a proposition', philosophers from the Indian sub-continent argue differently by holding their standpoints. In their arguments three major and distinct views are noticed those are elucidated in the following passages.

1. Abhihitānvyavāda (Word is the unit of meaning)
2. Akhandabhayanuvāda (Sentence is the unit of meaning)
3. Anvitābhidhānavāda (Related meanings)

The grammarians; Bharţhari and Pānini among others advocated the doctrine 'akhandabhayanuvāda' which suggests that a sentence is the primary unit of linguistic meaning, and the meanings of the concatenating words are nothing more than the product of syntactic and semantical analysis. To simplify, the meaning of a sentence is not the sum total of the meanings of its constituent words. Rather it is an integral and indivisible meaning which is placed over and above its constituent words. The meaning of a sentence, in this sense, can be interpreted as an 'impartite whole' (Siderits, 1985, 133). Having said this, they never denied the fact that the constituent words of a sentence do play role for apprehending the meaning of a sentence, but repudiated the argument that individual word acquires meaning in isolation of a sentence. They claimed that constituent words of a sentence acquire meanings when they are used in a sentence. They submitted that as phonemes are used to apprehend the word-meaning, in a similar manner, words are used to apprehend the sentence meaning.