英语专业语言学论文.docx

英语专业语言学论文.docx

《英语专业语言学论文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语专业语言学论文.docx（15页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

英语专业语言学论文

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

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

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

Abstract

Whetherlinguisticsignsarearbitraryornothasbeenanever-discussedandcontroversialissueinlinguisticcircle.Duringtherecentyears,afewlinguistshavearguedthaticonicityoperatesateveryleveloflanguage（phonology,morphology,syntax）andevenhaveassertedthaticonicityisthemostfundamentalfeatureoflinguisticsigns.

Inordertofindouttheoriginofthedispute,theauthorhasexaminedSaussure’stheoryofthearbitrarinessoflanguageandPeirce’stheoryoficonicityrespectively.ItisfoundthatarbitrarinessandiconicitydiscussedbySaussureandPeircelieindifferentlevelsoflanguageandtheyarenotcontradictorytoeachother.Tofurtherexpoundthecomplementarityofarbitrarinessandiconicity,theauthorexamineslanguagestructure,theevolutionoflanguageandlanguageuseincommunication.Andfromtheaboveanalysisweconcludethatbotharbitrarinessandiconicityarefundamentalfeaturesoflinguisticsigns.Thetwofeaturesarecoexistentandcomplementaryinlanguagesystemandverbalcommunication.

Keywords:

linguisticsigns,arbitrariness,iconicity,complementarity

Content

I.Introduction:

TheDebateonArbitrarinessandIconicityinLinguisticSigns

1.1Theoriginofthedispute

1.1.1TheNaturalistsvs.theConventionistsinancientGreece

1.1.2Leibnizvs.Lockein17thcentury

1.1.3Humboldtsvs.Whitneyin19thcentury

1.2ThedebateabroadsinceSaussure

1.2.1Theviewsheldbyadvocatesoftheprincipleofarbitrariness

1.2.2Viewsopposedtotheprincipleofarbitrariness

II.TheTheoryofArbitrariness

2.1Saussure’sabsolutearbitrariness

2.2Saussure’srelativearbitrariness

2.3Factorsrestrictingarbitrariness

2.3.1ArbitrarinessandConventionality

2.3.2ArbitrarinessandSystematicity

III.TheTheoryofIconicity

3.1ThePeirce’smodeloftaxonomyofsigns

3.1.1Symbol

3.1.2Indexes

3.1.3Icon

3.2Categoriesoficonicity

3.2.1ImagicIconicity

3.2.1.1Onomatopoeicsigns

3.2.1.2Soundsymbolism

3.2.2Diagrammaticiconicity

3.2.2MetaPhoriealiconicity

IV.ComplementarityofArbitrarinesstoIconicity

4.1IconicityandMotivation

4.2ComplementaritybetweenArbitrarinessandIconicity

4.2.1ComparingtheoriesofSaussureandPeirce

4.2.2Fromtheperspectiveoftheevolutionoflanguage

4.2.2.1Atlexicallevel

4.2.2.2Syntacticchangeandiconicity

4.2.3Fromtheperspectiveofverbalcommunication

4.2.3.1Languageproductionincommunication

4.2.3.2Mutualunderstandingincommunication

4.2.3.3Briefconclusion

V.Summary:

Languageisbotharbitraryandnon-arbitrary

OntheArbitrarinessandIconicityofLinguisticSigns

论语言符号的任意性和象似性

Ⅰ.Introduction:

TheDebateonArbitrarinessandIconicityinLinguisticSigns

FromancientGreecetoPresenttime,thedebateonwhetherlinguisticsignsarearbitraryornothasbeenarecurringthemeinlinguisticinquiryintothenatureofthelinguisticsign.

1.1Theoriginofthedispute

1.1.1TheNaturalistsvs.theConventionistsinancientGreece

Thediscussiononarbitrarinessandiconicityinlanguageisdeeplyrootedinthehistoryoflanguagestudies.GoingfarbacktoancientGreece,therewasadebatebetweentheNaturalistsandtheConventionists.

PlatowastherepresentativeoftheNaturalists.InthedialogueCratylus（2003）,Platomaintainedthatnamesrevealedtheessenceofthings,andtherewasnaturalconnectionbetweennamesandthings.While，Aristotle，Plato’sstudent,whoheldtheviewsoftheConventionists,notedthat“therecanbenonaturalconnectionbetweenthesoundofanylanguageandthethingssignified”（citedinChandler,2002:

26）.

1.1.2Leibnizvs.Lockein17thcentury

Itwasinthe17thand18thcenturiesthatthetopicbecamecrucialandresultedinadiscussionoftheAristotelianparadigmwhichhadconditionedEuropeanPhilosophyoflanguagefromthelateantiquity（Gensini,1994:

3）.

IntheNewEssaysonhuman,Leibnizbelievesthat“languagesarethebestmirrorofthehumanmind,andthatapreciseanalysisofthesignificationofwordswouldtellusmorethananythingelseabouttheoperationsoftheunderstanding”（Leibniz,1981:

333）.

FromLocke’sstatement,wecanseethedifferencebetweenlanguagesinthegroundsonwhichLockearguedforthearbitrarinessoflinguisticsigns.ThiscoincideswithSaussure’sargumenttwocenturieslater.

1.1.3Humboldtsvs.Whitneyin19thcentury

In19thcenturytherewerealsoopposingviewsonthenatureoflanguage.WilhelmvonHumboldts（1988:

61），thefamousGermanlinguist,proposedthatlanguagestructureisareflectionofthestructureoftheworld,aviewsimilartosyntacticiconicitydiscussedbyusnowadays.

WhileDwightWhitney,anotherinfluentiallinguistinthesamecentury,mentionedthearbitrarinessoflanguageseveraltimesinhisLanguageandthestudyofLanguage.Heemphasizedthearbitraryrelationshipbetweenasoundpatternandaconcept.

1.2ThedebateabroadsinceSaussure

ThroughthereviewofthedebatebeforeSaussure,wemayfindthatprincipleofarbitrarinesswasnotSaussure’soriginalconception.However,theemphasis,whichSaussurelaidonitinhisstructuraltheoryoflanguage,drewtheattentionoflinguists.Andfromthenon,hisprincipleofthearbitrarinesshasbeenheatedlydiscussed.

1.2.1Theviewsheldbyadvocatesoftheprincipleofarbitrariness

SincethetimeofSaussure,whosethoughtcametoexertapervasiveandenduringinfluencewellintothemodernperiod,linguistshavegenerallystucktotheprincipleofarbitrariness.

Meillet,oneofSaussure’sfollowers,emphasizedtheimportanceoftheprincipleinthestudyofcomparativelinguistics.InaccordwithSaussureandMeillet,SapiremphasizedthearbitrarynatureoflinguisticsignsHedemonstratedthearbitrarinessoflinguisticsignsintheintroductiontohisbooklanguage.

1.2.2Viewsopposedtotheprincipleofarbitrariness

Forgenerationsofscholars,theprincipleofarbitrarinesshasbeenadogmaoflinguistics.Yetsuchaviewoflanguagehascomeunderincreasingfire.Thechallengingviewsarosenowandthen.Manyscholarsexpressedtheirdisagreementfromdifferentangles.

BasedonPeirce’sclassificationofsignsinthestudyoficonicity,Jakobson（1971:

352）claimedthat“BothinsyntaxandinmorphologyanyrelationofpartsandwholesagreewithPeirce’sdefinitionofdiagramsandtheiriconicnature.”Andinhisviewpoint，thisdiagrammaticiconicityinvalidatesSaussure’sprincipleofarbitrariness.

II.TheTheoryofArbitrariness

2.1Saussure’sabsolutearbitrariness

AccordingtoSaussure，linguisticsignshavetwoPrimordialcharacteristics，thefirstprincipleisthatlinguisticsignisarbitrary.Itisthisprinciplethatevokesthedebateafterhim.

Saussurearguesthebondbetweensignifierandsignifiedisarbitrary.Heintendstoprovehisclaimbythedifferenceamonglanguages.Forexample,“Tree”,“树”,“き”and“arbor”canallstandforroughlythesameconceptbecausethereisnothingaboutanyofthesesoundsthatisliketrees.

Theoreticallyspeaking，anysignifiercouldrepresentanysignified.Nospecificsignifierisnaturallymoresuitedtoasignifiedthananyothersignifier.Itistotallyarbitraryforustochoosecertainsoundpatterntoexpresscertainconcept.Soitispossibleforustocall“black”“white”,or“sky”“ground”,beforethelanguagesystemisset.

2.2Saussure’srelativearbitrariness

Saussurecouldhaveforeseenthedisputeonhisarbitrarinessafterhim.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.

2.3Factorsrestrictingarbitrariness

WhenSaussureemphasizestheimportanceoftheprincipleofArbitrariness,heseesfactorsthatmayrestricttheproductionanddevelopmentoflinguisticsigns.Thesefactorsinvolvetheexternalsocialandculturalfactorsandinternalfactorsinthesystemoflanguage.

2.3.1ArbitrarinessandConventionality

Conventionalityisafactorrestrictingarbitrariness.Whenweinterpretarbitrariness,weshallrealizethat“itmustnotbetakentoimplythatasignaldependsonthefreechoiceofthespeaker.”（Saussure，2001:

68）.Thatistosay,theprincipleof