Arbitrariness And Iconicity Of The Linguistic Sign

Ever since F. de Saussure put forward the principle of arbitrariness, fierce debates have been triggered about the arbitrariness and iconicity of the linguistic sign. Many linguists at home and abroad have aired challenging views from the perspective of iconicity, and many other linguists uphold that the Saussurean view of arbitrariness is absolutely correct, and the discovery of iconicity can complement rather than replace it. In my opinion, there exist some misunderstandings and confusions of some basic conceptions on Saussure's principle of arbitrariness in the long debates. By tracing back to the origin and development of the debates over the Principle of arbitrariness, I will clarify some misunderstandings of Saussure's principle, and defend Saussure. This thesis contains altogether six chapters. Chapter 1 is a general introduction to the topic of the arbitrariness and iconicity of the linguistic sign. In Chapter 2, I make a sketchy description of the development of the debates over the arbitrariness and iconicity of the linguistic sign in the pre-Saussurean era: naturalism vs. conventionalism in ancient Greece, realism vs. nominalism in the later Middle Ages, rationalism vs. empiricism in early Modern Period. It is characterized by nomenclature and unyielding rivalry in each pair of the conflicting schools. In Chapter 3, I elaborate on Saussure's successful challenge to the traditional nomenclature and unyielding rivalry on the question of arbitrariness and iconicity of the linguistic sign. Taking language as an autonomous and synchronic social-psychological sign system, Saussure establishes the principle of arbitrariness in which a compromise is made between arbitrariness and iconicity with a priority of the former to the latter, thus a harmonious balance is achieved. Saussure absorbs and improves the classical views of arbitrariness and iconicity. Chapter 4 is a review of the debates abroad over the principle of arbitrariness. Three modern linguistic schools'attitudes towards the principle of arbitrariness are examined in detail. Structural linguists like Sapir and Bloomfield uphold the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign, although they still have some doubts and reservations about Saussure's sign view. Functional linguists and cognitive linguists claim an open denial of Saussure's principle. Benveniste's principle of necessity is a misunderstanding of Saussure. Jakobson, Halliday, Givon, Langacker and other functional and cognitive linguists charge Saussure of overemphasis on the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. Their new developments on the iconicity study is not a challenge to Saussure, but a further development of Saussure's principle of arbitrariness. Chapter 5 is a review of Chinese scholars'views of Saussure's principle of arbitrariness. There are still some misunderstandings of Saussure's principle of arbitrariness. In Sum, Saussure's principle of arbitrariness is valid. It is a perfect balance between arbitrariness and iconicity. The new developments on the iconicity study is not a challenge to Saussure, but a further development of Saussure. We must discard any misunderstanding or confusion of Saussure.