On Arbitrariness And Iconicity Of The Linguistic Sign

The relation of arbitrariness and iconicity has been a recurring theme in the linguistic inquiry into the nature of the linguistic sign, the essence of which lies in the relationship between linguistic form and its meaning. Debates concerning such problems can date back to ancient Greek, where The "Nominalists" and "Naturalists" argued vigorously about how names are related to things they refer to. Ever since Ferdinand de Saussure put forward the principle of arbitrariness with the publication of Course in General Linguistics in1916, fierce debates have been triggered again about the arbitrariness and iconicity of the linguistic signs. Many linguists at home and abroad have aired challenging views from the perspective of iconicity, while other linguists still uphold de Saussure, claiming that his view on arbitrariness is absolutely correct, and the discovery of iconicity can complement rather than replace it. We argue that de Saussure’s arbitrariness principle is valid. Many scholars still have some doubts or even misunderstandings because they do not quite comprehend the essence of the principle from de Saussure’s stance, nor do they have an unbiased interpretation of the most important concepts like signifier, signified, arbitrariness, motivation, etc.How we look at iconicity is a key point in better understanding the relationship between arbitrariness and iconicity. Originated from Peirce’s semiotic theory, iconicity is a hot topic within the field of cognitive-functional linguistics. In light of Peirce’s typology of signs, we define iconicity in language as a natural resemblance or analogy between the linguistic form (the signifier) and the object or concept (the signified) it refers to in the world or rather in our perception of the world. Iconicity functions at all levels of language and is important to our use and comprehension of language. Therefore, the principle of iconicity should also be regarded as true nature of linguistic signs.Cognitive-functional linguists tend to use their research in iconicity to criticize Saussure’s principle of arbitrariness. We hold that such position is not fair. On one hand, Saussure didn’t put iconicity absolutely on the opposite side of arbitrariness. In fact, by using compound words as examples, he states clearly and firmly the relationship between absolute arbitrariness and relative arbitrariness. The latter can be viewed as a term similar to iconicity by nature. On the other hand, by using Semantic Triangle, we can understand the reasonableness and necessity of the coexistence of both arbitrariness and iconicity from the cognitive point of view. Therefore, structuralism and cognitive-functionalism have achieved the same result in exploring the universal nature of language.All in all, the present thesis attempts to explore arbitrariness and iconicity of linguistic sign in human language. In the thesis, we make the following basic points: (i) There exist various misunderstandings of de Saussure’s principle of arbitrariness due to different interpretations of both the core concepts as well as the main viewpoints.(ii) Iconicity of the linguistic signs, which is based on Peirce’s semiotics theory, can not be used by cognitive-functional linguistics as a deadly weapon to attack the principle of arbitrariness.(iii) Linguistic signs are both arbitrary and iconic by nature. Though distinct from each other in various aspects, they form a harmonious unity in language.(iv) Based on the traditional "Semantic Triangle", we can understand the coexistence of arbitrariness and iconicity within the framework of cognitive-functional linguistics.