英语专业语言学论文

On the Arbitrariness and Iconicity of Linguistic Signs

论语言符号的任意性和象似性

Ⅰ. Introduction:

The Debate on Arbitrariness and Iconicity in Linguistic Signs

From ancient Greece to Present time, the debate on whether linguistic signs are arbitrary or not has been a recurring theme in linguistic inquiry into the nature of the linguistic sign.

1.1The origin of the dispute

The discussion on arbitrariness and iconicity in language is deeply rooted in the history of language studies. Going far back to ancient Greece, there was a debate between the Naturalists and the Conventionists.

1.2 The debate abroad since Saussure

Through the review of the debate before Saussure, we may find that principle of arbitrariness was not Saussure’s original conception. However, the emphasis, which Saussure laid on it in his structural theory of language, drew the attention of linguists. And from then on, his principle of the arbitrariness has been heatedly discussed.

II. The Theory of Arbitrariness

2.1 Arbitrariness

As a symbolic unit, a word has both form and meaning. As a rule, the relation between the form and the meaning ,however ,is arbitrary .In other words, there is no inherent connection between the form and the meaning. III. The Theory of Iconicity

To explore the relationship between arbitrariness and iconicity, it is necessary for us to find out what the theory of iconicity deals with.

Generally speaking, iconicity, according to the explanation of Croft, is a type of external motivation for linguistic structure. The intuition behind iconicity is: the structure of language reflects in some degree the structure of experience, that is to say, the structure of the world, including (in most functionalists’ view) the perspective imposed on the world by the speaker (2000:164).

IV. Complementarity of Arbitrariness to Iconicity

Iconicity has often been defined in contrast to arbitrariness. However, after analyzing the semiotic theories of the two founders, we find actually these two terms are not contradictory to each other, on the contrary, they are complementary to each other.

4.1 Iconicity and Motivation

It is vital for us to recognize the distinction between iconicity and motivation. In fact, the failure to realize this distinction has led to the dispute among linguists on the problem whether linguistic signs are arbitrary or iconic.

4.2 Complementarity between Arbitrariness and Iconicity

In the process of verbal communication, the rules of the grammar are symbolic, arbitrary and conventional, whereas there are two ways in which iconicity is omnipresent. The first concerns the necessity of iconic signs in creative discourse. The second is to do with iconicity as a prerequisite of mutual understanding in communication in general.

V. Summary: Language is both arbitrary and non- arbitrary

Although the fundamental ideas between structuralists and cognitive linguists are totally different, in terms of this problem, it is possible for us to reconcile them. Now let's revisit the fact existing in the language system and during language communication as a summary.

Though iconicity is universal for languages as an important coding mechanism, it is not universal in the extent at the different language levels in the same language. For language is a mufti-level system, the iconicity at one level does not deny the arbitrariness at a different level. Thus, language is both arbitrary and iconic. The discovery of iconicity can complement rather than replace the principle of arbitrariness.