1、Holle, everyone. I am glad to give you this report. In fact, my knowledge of linguistics is shallow, so before I prepare this report, I have read some papers of some scholars for reference.Introduction: the argument over the arbitrariness and iconicity of linguistic sign has long existed. Plato thou
2、ght there is natural relationship between words and the objects to which they refer. This relationship is subject to the structure of the universe. However, Aristotle thought that the relationship between language and phenomenon is arbitrary. Then the contradiction between arbitrariness and iconicit
3、y came into being. Now I want to ask you a question, do you think that onomatopoeia indicates a non-arbitrary relationship between form and meaning? In my opinion, no matter whether you say “yes” or “no”, it will be OK. For example, the English word “murmurous” imitates the noise of flying mosquitoe
4、s. In this sense, it indicates iconicity. But you cannot deny that arbitrariness also exists. As for the noise of flying mosquitoes, there are many choices like “murmurous” and “murderous”. But “murmurous” is fortunately chosen to mean the noise. So I think both arbitrary and iconic rules play a rol
5、e. It just depends on the point of view that you take. Both theories can exist in the same unity. Semiotic arbitrariness can be evidenced in individual linguistic signs, whereas iconicity in the combination of signs. It seems that they are opposing, but they are complementary to each other. Definiti
6、on: arbitrariness means the absence of any physical correspondence between linguistic signals and the entities to which they refer.First, the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary. For example, we cannot explain why a book is called a /buk/ and a pen a /pen/. Second, the relation
7、ship between the signifiers is also arbitrary. For example, for the same meaning, the English word is “friend” but Chinese is “朋友”. On the one hand sassure uses the absolute arbitrariness principle to define the relationship between the signified and the signifier, on the other hand, he uses the rel
8、ative arbitrariness principle to represent the systematicness of linguistic sign. so we can see that sassure also realized the non-arbitrary aspect.Iconicity : as a semiotic notion refers to a natural resemblance or analogy between the form of a sign and the object or concept it refers to in the wor
9、ld or rather in our perception of the world. According to pierce, sign is divided into 3 categories.they are icon, index and symbol. Considerable research has shown that iconicity operates at every level of language. In the phonological level, there is natural resemblance between the pronunciation o
10、f some words and the object it refers to.such as onomatopoeia.eg,moo, miao,murmur. In the morphological level, there is resemblance between the writing forms of some words and the meaning of them. Chinese are pictographs. In English some words that begin with the letter o represent the things that l
11、ook like o.eg, orbit,orpal etc. in the syntactic level, language structure represents the structure of the world and the conceptual structure of people.The relationship between the twoThey are not completely contradictory because of these 2 reasonsFirst, the sign discussed by iconicity supporters is
12、 not the same of arbitrariness supporters. The former has a wider coverage. Saussure argued that sign consists of sound image and concept and the relation between the two is arbitrary. This shows,whats meant by Saussure is linguistic sign. However, iconicity supporters sign has the property of meta-
13、sign including all the signs, not only the language signs.Second, these two have different philosophy background. Arbitrariness came into being under the background of the philosophy that emphasized objectivity and rationality. So it looked at language as a self-contained and self-government system.
14、 But the philosophical basement of iconicity is embodied philosophy. It thought that there is resemblance between language and peoples experience. And language system has a close relationship with the society and culture. Because of different philosophical background, we have different understanding
15、s of the same concept.Besides, they have different characteristics. arbitrariness is used to describe linguistic sign and it is synchronic. Iconicity is used to describe both linguistic and other signs and it can be synchronic and diachronic.From the previous discussion,we can draw the conclusion th
16、at they are not completely contradictory, while we accept one aspect arbitrariness, we do not totally deny iconicity. They are things at different levels. We should see things from a dialectical point of view. It is better to consider iconicity as a complement of arbitrariness rather than a substitute.
