An Overview of the Relationship between Arbitrariness and Iconicity

【Abstract】In recent years， the study of arbitrariness and iconicity of linguistic signs have become the focus of many scholars both at home and abroad. The author of this paper， through expounding the definitions of arbitrariness and iconicity and tracing the development of the two theories， puts forward the idea that they coexist in the same linguistic signs. Arbitrariness is mainly reflected in a single symbol， whereas iconicity is reflected in the combination of symbols. The dialectic relationship between the two makes it the fundamental feature of linguistic signs.

【Key Words】linguistic signs； arbitrariness； iconicity； dialectic relationship

【作者簡介】杜人杰（1994-），男，漢族，海南海口人，在讀碩士，海南大學(xué)，研究方向：應(yīng)用語言學(xué)。

1. Introduction

This paper is going to introduce and analyze the relationship between arbitrariness and iconicity of linguistic signs. According to the idea of Saussures arbitrariness， the relationship between the sound and meaning of linguistic signs is arbitrary， while Peirces iconicity thought that relationship is iconic.

Aristotle was the first to introduce the feature of arbitrariness. He pointed out that there could be no natural connections between the sound of any language and the things signified. Saussure published his book Course in General Linguistics in 1916， which marked the beginning of modern linguistics and structuralism， so he was considered as the father of modern linguistics and structuralism. Foreign linguists like Halliday and Hockett insisted that Saussures principle of arbitrariness was unshakable. Domestic linguists also had a heated debate on arbitrariness， for example， Zhu Yongsheng， Hu Zhuanglin and the like.

The notion of iconicity was first proposed by an American philosopher Peirce. He said “the syntactic structure of each language is in accordance with the logic of iconicity.” （Peirce，1991） It was completely contrary to Saussures theory of arbitrariness. Scholars of our country such as Shen Jiaxuan， Zhang Shaojie and the like have discussed the linguistic iconicity for many times.

2. The arbitrariness of linguistic signs

In the course in General Linguistics， Saussure （2001） pointed out that the sign is described as a “Both components of the linguistic sign are inseparable. One way to appreciate this is to think of them as being like either side of a piece of paper and one side cannot simply exist without the other.” According to Saussures description mentioned above， it can be concluded that a sign is a combination of a sound pattern and a concept， which integrates both the form and meaning.

Saussures linguistic sign can be divided into absolute arbitrariness and relative arbitrariness. Absolute arbitrariness means the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. Relative arbitrariness refers to the systematicity between linguistic signs in language system.

3. The iconicity of linguistic signs

On the definition of iconicity， Peirce （1991） believed that iconicity is the property of similarity between one item and another. Many linguists did research on the iconicity and held the view that there are connections and motivations between the signifier and the signified.

Charles Sanders Peirce did not concern about how to distinguish “words” and “symbols”， but considered how meanings were expressed. He thought that the sign can be characterized as “icon”， “index” and “symbol”.

The imagic symbols of natural language are mainly images and diagrams. Thus， linguist Haiman categorized Peirces iconicity as diagrammatic iconicity and imagic iconicity. He placed his great importance of iconicity on the syntactic level and divided the diagrammatic iconicity into isomorphism and motivation.

4. Conclusion

Through the analysis on the principle of arbitrariness and iconicity， it is not difficult to find arbitrariness and iconicity are not opposite but compatible to each other. Iconicity can be regarded as a supplement to the principle of arbitrariness. After all， the arbitrariness and iconicity are indispensable in the history of language development. They both depend on each other. People should treat them with a dialectic point of view.

References：

[1]Saussure，F(xiàn).de.Course in General Linguistics[M].外語教學(xué)與研究出版社，2001.

[2] Peirce，CS.Peirce on Signs： Writing on semiotics by Charles Sanders Peirce[M].The university of North Carolina Press，1991.

[3]胡壯麟.對語言象似性和任意性之爭的反思[J].北京大學(xué)學(xué)報， 2005（3）：95-102.

[4]沈家煊.句法的象似性問題[J].外語教學(xué)與研究，1993（1）：25-28.

[5]張紹杰.語言符號任意性研究——索緒爾語言哲學(xué)思想探究[M].上海外語教育出版，2004.

[6]朱永生.論語言符號的任意性與象似性[J].外語教學(xué)與研究，2002 （1）：2-7.