英语专业语言学论文 24页

Xxxxxxxxx毕业论文OntheArbitrarinessandIconicityofLinguisticSigns系别专业年级学生姓名学号指导教师职称教授毕业论文原创性声明\n本人郑重声明：所呈交毕业论文，是本人在指导教师的指导下，独立进行研究工作所取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文不包含任何其他人或集体已经发表或撰写过的作品成果。对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。本人完全意识到本声明的法律结果由本人承担。签字：________________2010年5月13日摘要\n自从索绪尔提出了语言符号的任意性原则之后，语言符号是任意的还是非任意的问题在语言学界中成为一个被持续讨论并有争议的话题。与索绪尔的任意说相反，近年来，一些语言学家认为语言的每一个层面(语音，词形，句法)都存在着大量的象似性现象，甚至以此来否定语言符号的任意性。为了找出争论的根源，本文从索绪尔的任意性原则与皮尔士的象似性理论进行分析，我们发现他们所讨论的任意性与象似性属于不同的层面，两者并不矛盾。接着，笔者考察了语言结构、语言发展和语言应用三个方面，从而进一步阐释两者的互补关系，并且得出语言符号的任意性与象似性并非矛盾，而是相互补充，共存于语言体之中的结论。关键词:语言符号任意性象似性互补关系AbstractWhetherlinguisticsignsarearbitraryornothasbeenanever-discussedandcontroversialissueinlinguisticcircle.Duringtherecentyears,afewlinguistshavearguedthaticonicityoperatesateveryleveloflanguage(phonology,morphology,syntax)andevenhaveasserted\nthaticonicityisthemostfundamentalfeatureoflinguisticsigns.Inordertofindouttheoriginofthedispute,theauthorhasexaminedSaussure’stheoryofthearbitrarinessoflanguageandPeirce’stheoryoficonicityrespectively.ItisfoundthatarbitrarinessandiconicitydiscussedbySaussureandPeircelieindifferentlevelsoflanguageandtheyarenotcontradictorytoeachother.Tofurtherexpoundthecomplementarityofarbitrarinessandiconicity,theauthorexamineslanguagestructure,theevolutionoflanguageandlanguageuseincommunication.Andfromtheaboveanalysisweconcludethatbotharbitrarinessandiconicityarefundamentalfeaturesoflinguisticsigns.Thetwofeaturesarecoexistentandcomplementaryinlanguagesystemandverbalcommunication.Keywords:linguisticsigns,arbitrariness,iconicity,complementarityContentI.Introduction:TheDebateonArbitrarinessandIconicityinLinguisticSigns\n1.1Theoriginofthedispute1.1.1TheNaturalistsvs.theConventionistsinancientGreece1.1.2Leibnizvs.Lockein17thcentury1.1.3Humboldtsvs.Whitneyin19thcentury1.2ThedebateabroadsinceSaussure1.2.1Theviewsheldbyadvocatesoftheprincipleofarbitrariness1.2.2ViewsopposedtotheprincipleofarbitrarinessII.TheTheoryofArbitrariness2.1Saussure’sabsolutearbitrariness2.2Saussure’srelativearbitrariness2.3Factorsrestrictingarbitrariness2.3.1ArbitrarinessandConventionality2.3.2ArbitrarinessandSystematicityIII.TheTheoryofIconicity3.1ThePeirce’smodeloftaxonomyofsigns3.1.1Symbol3.1.2Indexes3.1.3Icon3.2Categoriesoficonicity3.2.1ImagicIconicity3.2.1.1Onomatopoeicsigns3.2.1.2Soundsymbolism3.2.2Diagrammaticiconicity\n3.2.2MetaPhoriealiconicityIV.ComplementarityofArbitrarinesstoIconicity4.1IconicityandMotivation4.2ComplementaritybetweenArbitrarinessandIconicity4.2.1ComparingtheoriesofSaussureandPeirce4.2.2Fromtheperspectiveoftheevolutionoflanguage4.2.2.1Atlexicallevel4.2.2.2Syntacticchangeandiconicity4.2.3Fromtheperspectiveofverbalcommunication4.2.3.1Languageproductionincommunication4.2.3.2Mutualunderstandingincommunication4.2.3.3BriefconclusionV.Summary:Languageisbotharbitraryandnon-arbitraryOntheArbitrarinessandIconicityofLinguisticSigns论语言符号的任意性和象似性Ⅰ.Introduction:\nTheDebateonArbitrarinessandIconicityinLinguisticSignsFromancientGreecetoPresenttime,thedebateonwhetherlinguisticsignsarearbitraryornothasbeenarecurringthemeinlinguisticinquiryintothenatureofthelinguisticsign.1.1Theoriginofthedispute1.1.1TheNaturalistsvs.theConventionistsinancientGreeceThediscussiononarbitrarinessandiconicityinlanguageisdeeplyrootedinthehistoryoflanguagestudies.GoingfarbacktoancientGreece,therewasadebatebetweentheNaturalistsandtheConventionists.PlatowastherepresentativeoftheNaturalists.InthedialogueCratylus(2003),Platomaintainedthatnamesrevealedtheessenceofthings,andtherewasnaturalconnectionbetweennamesandthings.While，Aristotle，Plato’sstudent,whoheldtheviewsoftheConventionists,notedthat“therecanbenonaturalconnectionbetweenthesoundofanylanguageandthethingssignified”(citedinChandler,2002:26).1.1.2Leibnizvs.Lockein17thcenturyItwasinthe17thand18thcenturiesthatthetopicbecamecrucialandresultedinadiscussionoftheAristotelianparadigmwhichhadconditionedEuropeanPhilosophyoflanguagefromthelateantiquity(Gensini,1994:3).IntheNewEssaysonhuman,Leibnizbelievesthat“languagesarethebestmirrorofthehumanmind,andthatapreciseanalysisofthesignificationofwordswouldtellusmorethananythingelseabouttheoperationsoftheunderstanding”(Leibniz,1981:333).FromLocke’sstatement,wecanseethedifferencebetweenlanguagesinthegroundsonwhichLockearguedforthearbitrarinessoflinguisticsigns.ThiscoincideswithSaussure’sargumenttwocenturieslater.1.1.3Humboldtsvs.Whitneyin19thcenturyIn19thcenturytherewerealsoopposingviewsonthenatureoflanguage.WilhelmvonHumboldts(1988:61)，thefamousGermanlinguist,proposedthatlanguagestructureisareflectionofthestructureoftheworld,aviewsimilartosyntacticiconicitydiscussedbyusnowadays.WhileDwightWhitney,anotherinfluentiallinguistinthesamecentury,mentionedthe\narbitrarinessoflanguageseveraltimesinhisLanguageandthestudyofLanguage.Heemphasizedthearbitraryrelationshipbetweenasoundpatternandaconcept.1.2ThedebateabroadsinceSaussureThroughthereviewofthedebatebeforeSaussure,wemayfindthatprincipleofarbitrarinesswasnotSaussure’soriginalconception.However,theemphasis,whichSaussurelaidonitinhisstructuraltheoryoflanguage,drewtheattentionoflinguists.Andfromthenon,hisprincipleofthearbitrarinesshasbeenheatedlydiscussed.1.2.1TheviewsheldbyadvocatesoftheprincipleofarbitrarinessSincethetimeofSaussure,whosethoughtcametoexertapervasiveandenduringinfluencewellintothemodernperiod,linguistshavegenerallystucktotheprincipleofarbitrariness.Meillet,oneofSaussure’sfollowers,emphasizedtheimportanceoftheprincipleinthestudyofcomparativelinguistics.InaccordwithSaussureandMeillet,SapiremphasizedthearbitrarynatureoflinguisticsignsHedemonstratedthearbitrarinessoflinguisticsignsintheintroductiontohisbooklanguage.1.2.2ViewsopposedtotheprincipleofarbitrarinessForgenerationsofscholars,theprincipleofarbitrarinesshasbeenadogmaoflinguistics.Yetsuchaviewoflanguagehascomeunderincreasingfire.Thechallengingviewsarosenowandthen.Manyscholarsexpressedtheirdisagreementfromdifferentangles.BasedonPeirce’sclassificationofsignsinthestudyoficonicity,Jakobson(1971:352)claimedthat“BothinsyntaxandinmorphologyanyrelationofpartsandwholesagreewithPeirce’sdefinitionofdiagramsandtheiriconicnature.”Andinhisviewpoint，thisdiagrammaticiconicityinvalidatesSaussure’sprincipleofarbitrariness.II.TheTheoryofArbitrariness2.1Saussure’sabsolutearbitrarinessAccordingtoSaussure，linguisticsignshavetwoPrimordialcharacteristics，thefirstprincipleisthatlinguisticsignisarbitrary.Itisthisprinciplethatevokesthedebateafterhim.Saussurearguesthebondbetweensignifierandsignifiedisarbitrary.Heintendstoprovehisclaimbythedifferenceamonglanguages.Forexample,“Tree”,“树”,“き”and“arbor”can\nallstandforroughlythesameconceptbecausethereisnothingaboutanyofthesesoundsthatisliketrees.Theoreticallyspeaking，anysignifiercouldrepresentanysignified.Nospecificsignifierisnaturallymoresuitedtoasignifiedthananyothersignifier.Itistotallyarbitraryforustochoosecertainsoundpatterntoexpresscertainconcept.Soitispossibleforustocall“black”“white”,or“sky”“ground”,beforethelanguagesystemisset.2.2Saussure’srelativearbitrarinessSaussurecouldhaveforeseenthedisputeonhisarbitrarinessafterhim.Heraisesthenotionof“relativearbitrariness.”Hedeclaresthat“theentirelinguisticsystemfoundedupontheirrationalprinciplethatthesignisarbitrary.”(Saussure,2001:131)Howeverimmediatelyfollowedthisprovocativedeclarationheacknowledgesthat“appliedwithoutrestriction,thisprinciplewouldleadtoutterchaos.”(ibid:131)Saussureintroducesadistinctionbetweendegreesofarbitrariness:“Thefundamentalprincipleofthearbitrarynatureofthelinguisticsigndoesnotpreventusfromdistinguishinginanylanguagebetweenwhatisintrinsicallyarbitrary--thatis,unmotivated--andwhatisonlyrelativelyarbitrary.Notallsignsareabsolutelyarbitrary.Insomecases,therearefactorswhichallowustorecognizedifferentdegreesofarbitrariness,althoughnevertodiscardthenotionentirely.Thesignmaybemotivatedtoacertainextent.”(Saussure,2001:130).Saussureadoptstheterm“absolutearbitrariness”torefertotherelationshipbetweensignifierandsignified,while“relativearbitrariness”todenotethesystematicitybetweenlanguagesignsinthesystemoflanguage.2.3FactorsrestrictingarbitrarinessWhenSaussureemphasizestheimportanceoftheprincipleofArbitrariness,heseesfactorsthatmayrestricttheproductionanddevelopmentoflinguisticsigns.Thesefactorsinvolvetheexternalsocialandculturalfactorsandinternalfactorsinthesystemoflanguage.2.3.1ArbitrarinessandConventionalityConventionalityisafactorrestrictingarbitrariness.Whenweinterpretarbitrariness,weshallrealizethat“itmustnotbetakentoimplythatasignaldependsonthefreechoiceofthespeaker.”(Saussure，2001:68).Thatistosay,theprincipleofarbitrarinessdoesnotmeanthat\ntheformofawordisrandom.Beforealanguagesystemhasbeenestablished,itisarbitraryforustochooseacertainsoundpatterntoexpressacertainconcept.However,oncethelinguisticsignhasbecomeestablishedinalinguisticcommunity,anindividualhasnopowertochangeit.InSaussure’sopinion,“thestructureofalanguageisasocialproductforourlanguagefaculty.Atthesametime,itisalsoabodyofnecessaryconventionsadoptedbysocietytoenablemembersofsocietytousetheirlanguagefaculty.”(ibid:68).Itisclearthatapartfromthearbitraryrelation,Saussurealsostressestherelationshipbetweensignifierandsignifiedisconventional-dependentonsocialandculturalconvention.2.3.4.2ArbitrarinessandSystematicityAccordingtoSaussure(2001:121),inalinguisticstate,everythingdependsonrelations.“Alanguageisasysteminwhichalltheelementfittogether,andinwhichthevalueofanyoneelementdependsonthesimultaneouscoexistenceofalltheothers.”(ibid:113).Thatistosay.Everysignisn'tanautonomousunit,butapartinthesystemoflanguage,anditisdependentontheothermembersinthesystem.“Ontheonehand,theconceptappearstobejustthecounterpartofasoundpattern,asoneconstituentpartofalinguisticsign.Ontheotherhand,thislinguisticsignitselfasalinkunitingthetwoconstituentelementslikewisehascounterparts.”(ibid:113).Forexample,tounderstandwhatisred,itisnecessarytoknowthedistinctionbetweenredandothercolors,say,blue,white,blacketc.Saussurehimselfseesthisrestriction.He(2001:131)claims,”Sofarwehavelookeduponunitsasvalues,aselementsofasystem,andconsideredprincipallytheoppositionsbetweenthem.Butnowwearetakingstockoftheirinterdependences,bothassociativeandsyntagmatic,whichcombinetosetalimittoarbitrariness.”Howdoessystematicityrestrictarbitrariness?ItisexhibitedinSaussure'srelativearbitrarinessorrelativemotive,whichwewilldiscussinthefollowingsection.Inpractice,theprocessoflearninglanguagecanprovethisrestrictionfromrelationalsystem.Whenbeginnerslearnalanguage,atthebeginningtheymaybetotallybewilderedbythearbitraryrelationbetweensignifierandsignified.However,withtheaccumulationoftheirknowledgeofthetargetlanguage,theymaygraduallyfindouttheregularityandrulesofthatlanguage.Weallexperiencesuchaprocess,whichexplainstheeffectsthatsystematicityexertsonthe\narbitrariness.III.TheTheoryofIconicityToexploretherelationshipbetweenarbitrarinessandiconicity,itisnecessaryforustofindoutwhatthetheoryoficonicitydealswith.Generallyspeaking,iconicity,accordingtotheexplanationofCroft,isatypeofexternalmotivationforlinguisticstructure.Theintuitionbehindiconicityis:thestructureoflanguagereflectsinsomedegreethestructureofexperience,thatistosay,thestructureoftheworld,including(inmostfunctionalists’view)theperspectiveimposedontheworldbythespeaker(2000:164).3.1ThePeirce’smodeloftaxonomyofsigns3.1.1SymbolAsymbol,accordingtoPeirce,“isasignwhichreferstotheobjectthatitdenotesbyvirtueofalaw”(Peirce,1931-58.2:294),thatis,suchsignscometoexistencethroughcertainconventions.Weinterpretsymbolsaccordingto“arule”,orahabitualconnection.Atthesametime,Peirceillustrates:“Allwords,sentences,books,andotherconventionalsignsareSymbols.”(ibid:292).Therefore,generallyspeaking,alllanguagesintheworldaresymbolsystems.3.1.2IndexesInthecaseoftheindex,thereisarelationshipofcauseandeffect,oratemporal,localorphysicallinkbetweenthesignanditsobject.Indexesrefertotheirobjectsviaanactualcasuallinkbetweenthesignanditsobject(ibid:248).Therefore,thesignandtheobjectaredirectlyconnectedinsomeway(Physicallyorcausally)totheobject.Andthelinkcanbeobservedorinferred.Forexample,whenRobinsonCrusoeseesFriday’sfootprintinthesandherealizesthereisanotherhuman.Here,thefootprintisanindexwhichsignalstoCrusoethereexistsanotherhuman.Likewise,smokeisanindexoffire,aweathercockisanindexofwinddirection,amarkonafeverthermometerisanindexofbodytemperature,andsoforth.3.1.3IconAccordingtoPeirce(ibid.247),“aniconisasignwhichreferstotheobjectthatit\ndenotesmerelybyvirtueofcharactersofitsown,andwhichitpossesses,justthesame,Whetheranysuchobjectexistornot…”Thatis,theessentialaspectofaniconisoneofsimilaritybroadlydefined.Inotherwords,aniconstandsforanobjectbyresemblingit,notnecessarilyvisually,butbyanymeans.Includedinthiscategoryofsignareobviousexampleslikepictures,maps,anddiagramsandsomenotsoobviousoneslikealgebraicexpressions.Someonomatopoeicwords,suchaspu-we,tick-tock,bang,etc.belongtothiscategoryoficonsfortheyarecoinedtoresembletheconceptstheysignify.Peircedividediconicsignsintothreesubcategories:images,diagramsandmetaphors.Imageshaveaphysicalresemblancetotheirreferents.BothPicturesandonomatopoeicwordsresembletheirreferentssotheyareobviousimages.“thosewhichrepresenttherelations,mainlydyadic,orsoregarded,ofthepartsofonethingbyanalogousrelationsintheirownparts,arediagrams”(ibid.:277),thatis,diagramsshowtherelationshipamongthepartsoftheobject,asmaps;MetaphorsneednotliterallyresemblethePhysicalformoftheirreferent,buttheyrelatetoitinamoreabstractway.3.2CategoriesoficonicityFromPeirce’ssubdivisionoficonicsigns,wegetthreesubclassesoficonicity,i.e.imagiciconicity,diagrammaticiconicityandmetaphoricaliconicity.3.2.1ImagicIconicityAccordingtothefirstclassoficonicsigns,wegetimagiciconicity.Inthiscategory,“thesignevincesanimmediatelyperceptiblesimilaritytoitsobjectofreference.”(Nőth,2001:21)3.2.1.1OnomatopoeicsignsThebest-knownexamplesofthemagictypeareonomatopoeicwordslikeanimalsoundssuchas“meow”(cat)or“moo”(cow),orvisualiconssuchaspaintingsorphotographs.Intheframeworkoficonicity,thesesignsaremotivatedbytheobject,intherealworldthattheyrepresent,andtheyarethereforenon-arbitrary.Asforthepossibilitythatonomatopoeicwordsandexclamationmightbeagainsttheprincipleofarbitrariness,Saussure(2001:69)defendshisclaimbypointingoutthat“onomatopoeicwordsandexclamatorywordsarerathermarginalphenomena,”inhisopinion,thesewordsarenothreattotheprincipleofarbitrarinessbecause“suchwordsarenever\norganicelementsofalinguisticsystem.Moreover,theyarefarfewerthanisgenerallybelieved”(ibid:69)Moreover,wemayuseothersignifierstosignifythesameconceptwithnon-onomatopoeicwords.Forexample,inChinese,wemayreferto“布谷鸟”with“杜鹃”,theformeroneistheonomatopoeicwaytorefertothebird,whilethelatterisnot,buttheyrefertothesameconcept.InEnglish,theword“Ping-Pong”hasthesamemeaningwith“tabletennis”.However,wecannotdenythiskindofimagiciconicityfortheirscarcity,fortheirdependenceonmediumbecauseonomatopoeicexpressionsareakindofprimitivenameforanobjectintheformofanimitationofthesoundproducedit.Intheseexpressions,theimitationoftheenvironmentalsoundsisactuallyexistent.Saussure(2001:69)himselfacknowledgesthat“theirsymbolicoriginistosomeextentdisputable”.Therefore,asfortheonomatopoeicwords,ontheonehand,weacknowledgetheexistenceofsuchiconicsigns;ontheotherhand,weshallseethemotivationofthesewordsisrelative.Suchexamplesofmotivatedsimilaritybetweensignifierandsignifiedarehighlyrestricted,thusonomatopoeicwordscannotserveastheadequateevidenceagainsttheprincipleofarbitrariness.3.2.1.2SoundsymbolismAnotherkindofimagiciconicityissoundsymbolism.Manyexamplesofsoundsymbolismfitthecategoryofimagiciconicitysinceoftenthereaphysicalrelationbetweenthearticulationofasoundandits“meaning”.Inthesimplestdefinition,soundsymbolismis“aninmost,naturalsimilarityassociationbetweensoundandmeaning,(Jakobson,1979:178,quotedfromSadowski,2001:70).ToPutitsPacifically,certainsounds(vowels,consonants,andsuprasegments)areintuitivelyPerceivedtorepresentpropertiesofobjects,suchassize,shape,brightness,movement,weightandsoon.ThestudyofsoundsymbolismcanbetracedtothatofHomboldt.He(1988:73)claimsthattheGermanwordsbeginningwithw,hardenedfromthealreadyinherentlydullandhollowu,suchaswaft,wind,wisp,wobbleandwishexpressallthewavering,uneasymotion,presentinganobscureflurrytothesenses.Withtheaboveexampleheiscertainthataconnectionbetweenthesoundofawordanditsmeaningexists.Regardingtheseexamplesofsoundsymbolism,it’seasyforustofindoutcounter\nexamplesinthesamelanguage.Forexample,thepresenceofthesameinitialphonemestringglin“glacier”,“glove”,“gloss”doesnotappeartohavesuchimpactonperceivedmeaning.People’ssubjectiveimpressiononthesoundpatternmayaccountfortheexistenceofthephenomenonofsoundsymbolism.Peopleexaggeratethecorrespondencebetweensoundandmeaning.TheyarejustunreasonableasthecharacterinAldousHuxley’sCroweYellow,inwhichacharactergazingatsomepigswallowinginthemudremarks“Rightlyaretheycalledpigs”(Palmer,1971:18).Asthecharacterintheabovesequence,peopleareaccustomedtothesoundpatternpsychologically,thustheyrelyontheexistedsignsandtakeitforgrantedthatthereisnecessaryrelationbetweenthesoundandthemeaning.Moreover,thequestionariseswhetherthereissomeuniversalorphysiologicalbasisforthesehabits,forthepreferenceswhichpeopledemonstrateintheirformationofwordsforparticularsounds.TheappropriatenessofsoundsandmeaningsinanysinglelanguagesuchasEnglishmaybeapeculiarityofthatlanguage,ormaysimplyshowthatsinglelanguagecommunitiestendtodevelophabitsofconventionalorigininthesoundstheyuseforparticularclustersofideas.Inthissense,soundsymbolismisculturalratherthannaturalphenomenon.Therefore,thiskindofimagiciconicityisnotreliableevidenceagainsttheprincipleofarbitrariness.3.2.2DiagrammaticiconicityIndiagrammaticiconicity,thedirect,concreterelationbetweensignifierandsignifiedismissing.Instead,itistherelationbetweentheverbalelementsthaticonicallyreflectstherelationbetweenactivitiesontheconceptuallevel.Haiman,oneofthepioneersontheiconicityindefinesitasasystematicarrangementofsigns,noneofwhichnecessarilyresemblesitsreferent,butwhoserelationshipstoeachothermirrortherelationshipsoftheirreferents.”(1980:515).thisdefinitionmakesimmediatelyapparentthatdiagrammaticiconicity,incontrasttoimagiciconicity,alwaysinvolvesmorethanonesingleelement,thatis,itinvolvescomplexstructures,beitcompoundsorderivationsorastringofwords.3.2.2MetaPhoriealiconicityAmorecomp1ieatedformoficonicityismetaphor.AccordingtoPeirce,itismediatediconicity.TheideasconveyedbythesignandtheideaofitsobjectaremediatedbyathirdideaNoth,1999).Ametaphoriscreatedorunderstoodbecausethelanguageuserassociates\nelementsofmeaningthataparticularconcepthaswithelementsofmeaningofanotherconcept,andonthebasisofthatassociationorcomparisonthelanguageuserusesthesamesignforboth.Sofar,wehaveexaminedPeirce’sclassificationofsignsandthethreebasictypesoficonicitybasedonPeirce’ssubdivisionoficons.Inthefollowingchapter,we’llcomparehistheorywiththatofSaussure,tofindoutwhethertheyarecontradictoryorcomplementarytoeachother.IV.ComplementarityofArbitrarinesstoIconicityIconicityhasoftenbeendefinedincontrasttoarbitrariness.However,afteranalyzingthesemiotictheoriesofthetwofounders,wefindactuallythesetwotermsarenotcontradictorytoeachother,onthecontrary,theyarecomplementarytoeachother.4.1IconicityandMotivationItisvitalforustorecognizethedistinctionbetweeniconicityandmotivation.Infact,thefailuretorealizethisdistinctionhasledtothedisputeamonglinguistsontheproblemwhetherlinguisticsignsarearbitraryoriconic.Motivationcanhavedifferentdegreesofobviousness.Adifferenceisestablishedbetweenexternalmotivations(iconicity),lyingintheverynatureoftheacousticimagethatsomehowsuggeststhemeaningoftheword,acaseillustratedbyonomatopoeicwordsandinternalmotivationwherethemeaningofthewordcanbeanalyzedstartingfromitsstructureinwhichcasewecantalkaboutmorphological,semanticorphoneticmotivation.Thisisthestartingpointforustoexplicatethecomplementarityofthetwobasicfeaturesoflanguage.4.2ComplementaritybetweenArbitrarinessandIconicity4.2.1ComparingtheoriesofSaussureandPeirceSofar,wehaveexaminedrespectivelyonthetheoriesofSaussureandPeirce.Aswesee,Saussureactuallymeansbythearbitrarinessofthesignisthearbitrarinessoftherelationholdingbetweenitsconstituentparts,thesignifierandthesignified.Thislinkisarbitraryinthesensethatthereisnoreasonwhatsoeverforwhichaparticularstringofsoundsshouldbeassociatedwithacertainmeaning.Atthesametimeheadmits“languageisnotcompletelyarbitrary,forthesystemhascertainrationality.”(Saussure,2001:173).Inother\nwords,headmitstheexistenceofinternalmotivationinthelanguagesystem.AndSaussuretreatssuchinternalmotivation(thederivationalandcompositionalaspectsoflanguage)ascompensatingrationalforceswhoseaimistocreateacoherentlanguagesystempreciselysoastoreducethedifficultiescausedbyinitial,irrationalarbitrarinessoflanguage.WhereasPeircecontendsthatsignsdifferinhowarbitrarytheyare.Thispointisexhibitedinhisclassificationofsigns:Symbolicsignssuchaslanguagearehighlyconventionalandarbitrary;Iconicsignsrepresenttheirobjectsmainlybysimilarityinvolvingsomedegreeconventionality.Thus,bothSaussureandPeircecontendtherearbitrarinessandmotivationinlanguagesigns.Furthermore,Peircedefinesasymbolas“asign…liesinnothingbuttheveryfactoftherebeingahabit,disposition,orothereffectivegeneralrulethatitwillbesointerpreted.Take,forexample,theword“man”,thesethreelettersarenotintheleastlikeaman;noristhesoundwithwhichtheyareassociated.”(Peirce,1931-1958.4:447).HethuscharacterizeslinguisticsignsintermsofconventionalityinasimilarwastoSaussure.4.2.2FromtheperspectiveoftheevolutionoflanguageExplanationsoflanguageintermsofitssynchronicstructurearethereforelikelytoaccountforonlyasmallpartofwhylanguageisstructuredthewayitis,forlanguagedonotoccurinstaticstates.Alllanguagesexhibitsomedegreeofgrammaticalvariation,andtheychangeovertime.Moreover,despitetheinsistenceofmainstreamlinguisticstotreatlanguageasaclosedsemioticsystem,withoutreferencetoextralinguisticreality,“theseeminglycontradictoryclaimsaboutthearbitrarynatureofthelinguisticsignsontheonehandandaboutlinguisticiconicityontheotherhandcaninfactbereconciledwithinafunctionalmodeloftheevolutionoflanguage.”(Sadowski,2001:69).Therefore,whatweshalldointhissectionistoexplainthecharacteristicsoflanguagewithreferencetoitsdiachronicevolution.4.2.2.1AtlexicallevelIneverylanguage,newlanguageformornewmeaningisderivedfromtheexistingelements.Inthissense,weclaimthatnewformismotivated.Thecreationsofnewwordsfromexistingitemstoformcompounds,derivatives,blendsandsoonareexamplesofthismotivation.Forexample,wemayfindKoreagate,Billygate,Debategate,Peanutgate,\nLancegate,Irangate,Contragate,Passportgate,Filegate,Bimbogate,Paulagate,Cocainegate,Dianagate,haircutgateinvariousmediareports.AllthesescandalwordsarederivedfromthesuffixgatefollowingtheWatergatescandalinthe19705.Sometimes,theformofthewordremainsunchanged,andnewmeaningisderivedonthebasisoftheoldmeaningaccordingtosomesemanticfeaturesofthewordorfeaturesofthesignified.Theseareshownbythemetaphorsandmetonymiesomnipresentineverydaylanguage.Metaphorsandmetonymiesarebothimportantmechanismsinvolvedintheevolutionprocessoflanguage.Here,metaphorsarenolongermereornamentsofspeech(astheywereconsideredtobebytraditionalrhetoricians).Bymetaphor,aword-signusedforconcreteobjectcanbereinterpretedonamoreabstractlevel.Bymetonymy,thehiddenorunknownthingcanbere-resentedbythewayofsomethingthatisdirectlyrelatedtoit,therebyallowingustograspthewholethinginitsentirety.Examplesillustratedaboveexhibitthemotivationintheevolutionprocessoflanguage.Somelinguistsregardthismotivationastheevidenceagainstarbitrariness.Isthismotivationreallycontradictorytothearbitrarynatureoflanguage?Let’stakealookattheexamplegivenbyHeine(1997).He(1997:21)onceillustratedthemotivatednumeralsystemofMamvu—acentralAfricanNilo-Jaharanlanguageasexamplesformotivation.Forinstance,theword“5”isderivedfrom“hand”“10”fromtwohandsand“20”fromeithersomethinglike“handsandfeet”or“wholeperson”.Inthiscase,thesenumeralscorrespondtotheconceptualstructureofbody.However,hedoesn’tgofurthertoexplaintheoriginof“hand”and“feet”inMamvu.Ofcourseitisnotaneasydeedtotracetheoriginofthembecauseatinitialstage,thelinguisticsignisarbitrary.Asamatteroffact,Heine(ibid:3)himselfcontendsthatthismotivationdoesnotcontradictSaussure’sarbitrarinessaxiom.Forthesamereason,wecannotfindoutthesourceoftheoriginalformsofmetaphorsandmetonymies.Forexample,inthemetaphoricaluseoffoot---footofamountain,meaningof“thelowestpartofmountain”isderivedfromthebody-part“foot”.Wecanfindoutthisderivation,butcanhardlytracetheoriginoffoot(body-part).4.2.2.2Syntacticchangeandiconicity\nInthediachronicparadigm,wemayfindthatwords,aftertheirappearance,becomeconventionalized.Frequentlyusedphrasesbecomecongealedassinglewordswithacorrespondinglossoftheiroriginalmeaning,forexample,“black”inthecompound“blackboard”nolongermeans“black”.Theabovecaseshowsthat“Alinguisticformismotivatedincertainspecifiedcontexts,byroutinizationitsdistributionisgeneralizedsothatitoccursindependentlyoftheenvironmentwhichoriginallymotivateditsappearance(Haiman,1993:1634).Thegrammaticalcategoriesbelonghere.Forexample,intheprocessofgrammaticalization,lexicalwordsofalanguage(suchasEnglishkeepin“hekeepsbees”)becomegrammaticalforms(suchastheauxiliaryin“hekeepslookingatme”).Giventhegrammaticalformsaremotivatedincertainwayintheprocessofevolution,theybecomeconventionalized,thatistosay,muchofgrammarisfossilized,preservedthroughtheinertiaofsocialconvention.Therefore,“grammar,asweuseit,canbedescribedastheconventionalized(andtosomeextentfossilized)productofearlierpatternsoflessconstrainedlanguageuse.”(Heine,1997:3),4.2.3FromtheperspectiveofverbalcommunicationRoughly,languageisthegeneral-purposecommunicationdevice.Thatistosay,themainfunctionoflanguageistoconveymeaningandtocommunicatesuccessfully.Hence,“explaininglanguagestructurewithreferencetothegoalsofcommunicationis1ikelytoyieldmoreinsightsthanexplainingwithinreferencetolanguage-internalmechanism.”(Heine,1997:3).Inthecommunicationprocess,languageiswithinthemindofspeakersratherthanassomeabstractsystemoflangue.Inthissection,wewillstarttoexplorecomplementarityfromthisperspective.Ifpeoplearetocooperatetheymustunderstandoneanotherbysharingvalues.Sometimeswedeliberatelyagreetoagree,asinlearningthemathematicalformulaorthesymbolsH2Oforwater.Insuchacasethearbitrarinessandconventionalityofthesymbolsandtheirrelationtorealitystandoutboldly(Bolinger&Sears,1983:9).Thisshowseveryoneinthespeechcommunityagreesonsomeconsistentconvention.Whileatthesametime,thereisanotherforcerestrictingit,thatis,iconicity.Howdothesetwocompetingforcesexertinfluenceoneachother?\n4.2.3.1LanguageproductionincommunicationInFisherNanny’s(2001:xx)words,“thereisconventionalitywhetherweshouldusecertainwordstoexpressconventionalityourideasincommunication,whileontheotherhand,iconicityplaysarolewheneveraspeaker'sexpressivityisatissue;when,forwhateverreason(poetic,practical,humorous,outifsheernecessity),heorsheistryingtoexpresshimselforherselfanew,inamoreorlessworn-downformoflanguage.”Howdospeakersre-motivateorplaywiththeprimarycode,howdotheyconcretizewhathasbeenconventionalorhowtheyuseformtoaddtomeaning?Theexistingvocabularyandgrammarareinputfortheircreativity.Thus,bylexicalinnovation,bylexicallyandgrammaticallyregularperiphrasis,andbythefigurativeuseoflexicallocutions,speakersproducecontinuousflowofcreativeexpressions.Thisisnotonlyexhibitedinthelanguageofliterature,wherewritersaretryingtoexpressideasinthemostconcreteforminordertoconvertanordinaryphraseintosomethingmoreinteresting.Indailycommunicationthereisalsocreativelanguageuse.Forexample,Ihavetoomanyfilesopeninmymind.Whenweutterthisremark,wearereferringtoourmindasifitwereacomputer.Whencomputerjargonbecomespopular,webegintouseitintalkingaboutsomethingelse.Here,wearenotonlyusingexpressionsfromcomputervocabulary,butwearealsoconceptualizingourmindasifitwereacomputer.So,wealsosay,Theaboveexampleshowstheeffectofmetaphoricaliconicitywhichmakesthespeakers’utterancesafreshincertaincontext.Inaword,iconicityisacreativeforceinthelanguagecommunication.Wherenoveltyissoughtorimposedbycircumstance,iconicityisthemeanthatthespeakerresortstomakehimselfafresh.Symbolismcomeslaterbecauseitrequiresfamiliarity.Eachspeakermaymakehisowngrammarafreshonthebasisofdatasurroundinghim,andonthebasisofhisgeneralcognitiveabilitiesorstrategies.However,whenpeopleadaptpreexistinglinguisticmaterialstoassumenewshapesandincorporateoriginalmeaning,theyonlychooseoneaspectofasymbolatatime.Andamongthepreexistingmaterialsitisentirelyatthedisposalofthespeakertochoosewhatconventionalsignsasthesourceoftheircreativelanguageuse.4.2.3.2Mutualunderstandingincommunication\n“Thesuccessfulcommunicationofanideafromonespeakertoahearerthusinvolvesthreelevelsoficonicsignproduction.Thefirstandthesecondlevelsareinthespeakers’andhearer’sminds,where“familiarimages”areevoked.Thethirdisduetotheparallelismbetweenthesetwoimages,whichmakesthehearers’imageaniconofthespeakers’image.”(Noth,1999)Sofar,wehavediscussediconicityasthesourceofcreativityinlanguage.Thethirdonehastodowiththesymmetrybetweenthespeaker’sutterancesandhearers’interpretations.Ifverbalcommunicationistobesuccessful,theuttermustbeiconicoftheformertoacertaindegree.Thatis,iconicityisthesourceofthemutualunderstandingbetweenaspeakerandahearer.Forexample,ifaspeakerutterssuchanutterance“Thereisamixtureofthetigerandtheapeinthecharacterofthatguy.”,hehasanimageofferocityofthetigerandshrewdnessoftheape.Hetriestoconveysuchamessagetothehearer.Ifthehearer’simagestowardtigerandapeareidenticalwiththespeaker’s,thentheymayreachmutualunderstanding.Thus,theiconicityliesintheparallelismbetweenthespeaker’sandthehearer’sinterpretationofthesigns.However,itisnotnecessarilyaperfectsymmetry,duetotheiridiosyncraticexperiences,culturalknowledgeandtheirfeelingstowardisreferredtobythesign.Inthissenseiconicityisrestrictedbyconventionality.4.2.3.3BriefconclusionIntheprocessofverbalcommunication,therulesofthegrammararesymbolic,arbitraryandconventional,whereastherearetwowaysinwhichiconicityisomnipresent.Thefirstconcernsthenecessityoficonicsignsincreativediscourse.Thesecondistodowithiconicityasaprerequisiteofmutualunderstandingincommunicationingeneral.V.Summary:Languageisbotharbitraryandnon-arbitraryAlthoughthefundamentalideasbetweenstructuralistsandcognitivelinguistsaretotallydifferent,intermsofthisproblem,itispossibleforustoreconcilethem.Whatwecandoistotaketheproblemnotasamatterofthetheoryorthemodeladopted,butofwhetheracertainfacthasorhasnotbeenexistent.Nowlet'srevisitthefactexistinginthelanguagesystemandduringlanguagecommunicationasasummary.Inthesynchronicperspective,apartfromafewonomatopoeicexpressions,primary\nsinglewordsaresubjecttoSaussurean,non-motivatedarbitrarinessofsignification.Buticonicitycanbefoundincompoundandderivativewordsandclausestructures.Andthingschangeonthelevelofsyntax,whereiconicitymakesaquantumleap.Thus,thelinearsequenceofverbalsignsmaybeusedasaniconicdiagramtosignifysuccessionintimeandspace,continuity,change,duration,rankandmotion.Fromadiachronicperspective,itseemstomethatarbitrarinessandiconicityarenotgradedalongacontinuumandthetwonaturesarenotdevelopedoneafteranother,butmaycoexistatthesamephasebutatdifferentlevels.Iconicityisnotjustcharacteristicofanearlier,moreprimitivestageintheformationofgrammar;theexistenceofonomatopoeiaprovesthatthereiscorrespondencebetweenlanguageandrealitytosomeextentIneverydaylanguageuse,thecreativeandthemechanisticortheiconicandthesymbolic,gohandinhand,thattheyareasitwerealwayspresentatthesametime.Althoughatcertainpointswe,asspeakers,mayrelymoreontheoneortheother,i.e.wearemoreiconicwhencreatinglanguageafresh(aschildren,creatorsofapidgin,poets),andaremoremechanisticwhenconveyingamessageineverydaycommunicatorycircumstances,wearestillatthecrossroadsofbothpossibilities(Fischer,2001:348).Therefore,notalllanguagesareequallyarbitrary.Inordinarylanguage,orplainspeech,peoplemeanwhattheysay.Attheextremeofarbitrarinessaretotallyimpersonalclichés,proverbs,rituallanguage,andtheformulasofpoliteness.Whileintheprocessofcommunication,iconicelementsarenecessaryforcommunicatorstoreachmutualunderstanding.Itseemsthaticonicityisomnipresentinlanguagecommunication.ThisdoesnotmeanthattheresultsofresearchinlinguisticiconicityjustifyarejectionoftheSaussureandogmaandrequireitssubstitutionbyanewdogmaoficonicityoflanguage.Arbitrarinessandiconicityarenotamatterofeither-or;oneprincipledoesnotexcludetheother.Thoughiconicityisuniversalforlanguagesasanimportantcodingmechanism,itisnotuniversalintheextentatthedifferentlanguagelevelsinthesamelanguage.Forlanguageisamufti-levelsystem,theiconicityatoneleveldoesnotdenythearbitrarinessatadifferentlevel.Thus,languageisbotharbitraryandiconic.Thediscoveryoficonicitycancomplementratherthanreplacetheprincipleofarbitrariness.\n参考文献:[1].Benveniste,EProblemsinGeneralLinguistics[M]TranslatedbyMaryElizabethMeekCoralGables,Florida:UniversityofMiamiPress,1971.[2]Bloomfield,LLanguage[M]Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress2002.\n[3]Bollinger,D.&Sears,DA.Aspectsoflanguage[M]NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich1981[4]Chandler,DSemiotics:thebasics[M]London:Routledge2002[5]Croft,W.TypologyandUniversals[M]Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress1990[6]Culler,J.Saussure[M]Fontanapapaperbacks1976.[7]deSaussure,FCourseinGeneralLinguistics[M]Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress2000[8]Gensini,S“CriticismoftheArbitrarinessofLanguageinLeibnizandthe‘Natural’PhilosophyofLanguage”inIconicityinLanguage[C]editedbyRaffaeleSimoneAmsterdam;Philadelphia:J.Benjamins1995[9]Haiman,JTheiconicityofGrammar:IsomorphismandMotivation[J]Language:561980[10]Haiman,J.Iconicandeconomicmotivation[J]Language59:781一8191983.[11]Haiman,J.Iconicity.In:R.E.Asher(ed.)Theencyclopediaoflanguageandlinguistics.[A]Oxford:Press.1994.[12]Hockett,C.FACourseinModernLinguistics[M]NewYorkMacmillan1958[13]Holdcroft,D.Saussure:Signs,systems,andArbitrariness[M]Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress1991.[14]Jakobson,R“Questforessenceoflanguage”inhisSelectedWritings[M].TheHague.Paris:Mouton1971[15]Jakobson,R“LanguageinRelationtoOtherCommunicationSystems”inhisSelectedWritings[M]theHague.Paris:Mouton1971[16]Leibniz,GWNewEssaysonHumanunderstanding[M)translatedandeditedbyPeterremnantandJonathanBennettCambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress1981[17]Nanny,M.1986:199-208“IconicityinLiterature.”Word&Image[J]2.3[18]Noth,W“Semioticfoundationsoficonicityinlanguageandliterature”inTheMotivatedsign:iconicityinlanguageandliterature2/editedbyOlgaFischer,MaxNanny.[C]Amsterdam;Philadelphia,PA:JohnBenjaminsPub.Co.，2001.[19]Noth,WPeircianSemioticsintheStudyofIconicityinLanguage[J]TransactionsoftheCharlesS.PeirceSocietySummer,Vol.XXXV,N0.31999[20]Peirce,CS.Peirceonsigns:writingsonSemioticsbyCharlesSandersPeirce[M]\neditedbyJamesHoopesChapelHillandLondon:TheuniversityofNorthCarolinaPress1991[21]Sadowski,P“Thesoundasanechotothesense-theiconicityofEnglishgl-words”inTheMotivatedsigns:iconicityinlanguageandliterature2/editedbyOlgaFischer,MaxNanny.[C]Amsterdam;Philadelphia,PA:JohnBenjaminsPub.Co2001.[22]Sapir,E.Language[M]Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeaching&ResearchPress2001[23]费尔迪南.德.索绪尔普通语言学教程[M」北京:商务印丰1999[24]郭鸿索绪尔的语言符号任意性原则是否成立?----与王寅教授商榷《符号学研究》[C]王铭玉李经纬主编北京:军事谊文出版社2001[25][26]索振羽索绪尔的语言符号任意性原则是正确的[J1《语言文字应用》1995[27]王德春论语言单位的任意性和理据性---兼评王寅《论语言符号象似性》[J]《外国语》2001[28]王寅论语言符号象似性[J]《外借与外借教》1999[29]王寅象似说与任意说的哲学基础与辩证关系[J]解放军外国语学院学报2002.2[30]许国璋语言符号的任意性问题[J]《外语教学与研究》1988[31]严辰松语言理据研究[[J]《放军外国语学院学报》2000