The common element is kk.

Abhinavas four-fold bdabodha theory thus seems to be primarily a modified variety of the
Bha theory of abhihitnvayavda, with secondary elements from the Nyya view of the
word-meaning relation being conventional (smyika). Following Abhinava, later dhvani
theorists theorize ttpary as the vtti that brings about unified semantic sentential cohesion
(sasarga) of separate, individual word-meanings. Vivantha in the Shityadarpaa states
abhidhy ekaikapadrthabodhanavirmdvkyrtharpasya padrthnvayasya bodhik
ttparyanma vtti. tadarthaca ttparyrtha. The problematic here is that the Bhas
(who admit laka even in sentences, unlike the Naiyyikas, who admit laka only for
words) theorize that in the abhihitnvayavda view of sentence-meaning, the particular
unified sentential cognition of the universal individual padrthas is by laka, and not
ttpary. Even Mukulabhaa in the Abhidhvittamtaka discussing the abhihitnvayavda
says that here, laka is believed to occur after the vcyatva is over: anvayebhihitn s
vycayatvd rdhva iyate. Its Jayantabhaa, who, in the Nyyamajar first posits
ttparyaakti as signifying the vkyrtha, since the Naiyyikas do not admit sentential laka
and its plausible to conjecture that Abhinava borrowed his concept of ttparyaakti from
Jayanta. (In about the same period as Abhinava, Dhanika, commenting on Dhanajayas
Daarpaka 4.37 also uses in his anti-dhvani polemic the concept of ttparyaakti in the sense
of purport/speakers intention and theorizes that this extends till the very end of the
utterance: kryaparyvasyitvt ttparyaakte). Abhinava holds mukhyrthabdh as
constitutive of laka, which he defines as anvaynupapatti. If, however, laka is defined
as being triggered by ttparynupapatti instead of anvaynupapatti (as done by Annambhaa
in the Dpik autocommentary on the Tarkasagraha or by Dharmarja in the
Vedntaparibha or by Vivantha Nyya Pacnana in the Siddhnta Muktval or
Mukulabhaa in the Abhidhvittamtaka), Abhinavas quarternary schema stands refuted.
To complicate matters, upon defining ttparynupapatti as the lakabja, laka may be
posited as being subsumable under arthpatti, since laka itself operates through the
mechanism of arthpatti. Arthpatti in fact may be posited as the genus and laka, ttpary
(in the sense of speakers intention), dhvani, adhyhra/vkyaea and arthavda as its
species. Mukulabhaa in the Abhidhvittamtaka holds (inter alia) laka to be constituted
by paramrthatobhideyabhvasya anupapadyamnatvt , which can include both
anvaynupapatti as well as ttparynupapatti and treats the stock arthpatti exemplum pno
devadatto div na bhukte as an illustration of Updna laka and subsumes dhvani under
laka (lakamrgvaghitva tu dhvane sahdayair ntanatayopavaritasya vidyata iti
dia unmlayitu ida atra uktam). It might be objected that there is anterior
incoherence in anvaynupapatti and posterior incoherence (anyath anupapatti) in
ttparynupapatti, but I believe this objection is insignificant. Whether anupapatti is anterior
(syntactic and thus syntagmatic) or posterior (semantic and thus paradignatic), it