My assignment of Arbitrariness (Saussure & Structuralism)

 

The idea arbitrariness by Saussure is the focus of the structuralist linguistics and it shows that linguistic signs have no nature or inherent relationship between the signifier (sound pattern) and the signified (concept). Rather, the association is conventional in a language community (Joseph, 2022). According to Saussure, languages are systems of differences, not groupings of meaningful sounds that naturally resemble the meaning they signify (Katz, 2015). Arbitrariness is central to the structuralist approach as it constructs language as a closed system of relational values, not as one that is founded on external reality. Structuralism picks up the idea and extends it further to a more general theory of meaning whereby signs are meaningful since they are opposed to other signs in the system (Kronenfeld and Decker, 1979). This arbitrariness of the sign thus becomes the cornerstone of the structuralist model of language that supports the larger dichotomies that Saussure had in mind: linguistic/parole and synchrony/diachrony (Stwarska, 2020).

A prime illustration, which supports Saussure’s claim, can be drawn from multilingual settings. The word “water” can be used as an example: water (English), آب (Persian), shut (Mandarin). All of them refer to the  same referent but have completely different sound patterns. it is not natural that /wo:t/ should mean water and not /ab/. The distribution of lexical items does not show any relationship with other languages and this fact reveals that semantics is a construct of linguistic convention and not similarity. There is also the example of cross-linguistic onomatopoeia, which is usually brought out as an arbitrariness challenge. As an example, the dogs are described as producing sounds in English as woof, whereas in the Persian language it is called vagi-vagh and in Japanese it is referred to as wan-wan. These forms are trying to replicate sound, but they vary  significantly among languages signalling that even so-called iconic forms are arbitrary since they pass through the phonological process of the given language.

The contribution of the concept towards structuralism is significant. In offers the epistemological rationale of the language as a self-contained system of internal relations as opposed to external objects (Lemert, 2015). The aspect of arbitrariness also supports the definition of the sign given by Saussure as relational: it is not associated with reference to the world, but rather with differential oppositions within the linguistic system. This observation would be adopted by structuralist theories later to culture systems where they believed that myths, kinship and social structure were also founded on arbitrary symbolic relations (Kronenfeld and Decker, 1979). In the absence of arbitrariness, the structuralist project would be weakened, since the value of the analysis lies exactly in the removal of signs of association with experience or nature. Therefore, arbitrariness is the conceptual point of reference to the structuralist approach, which allows theoretical emphasis on synchronic structures and linguistic systems as a unit.

however, there has been tremendous criticism of the theory. cognitive linguists believe not all language is arbitrary; instead, the form-meaning mappings tend to have systematic motivations manifested in embodiment, metaphor and sensory experience. Research into sound symbolism, especially the boba/kiki effect, shows that some sounds are always linked to specific visual features, implying that some signs can have non-arbitrary psychological characteristics (Shi and Xiao, 2020). In addition, critics state that Saussure excessively focused on arbitrariness and underestimated motivated factors of language development, phonological limitations, and efficiency in communication (Joseph, 2022). The conservative demands of structuralism to be arbitrary also pose the risk of overlooking iconicity and indexicality, which are critical aspects of the theory of semiotics.

Further criticism is methodological, which asserts that structuralism marginalises social, cultural and cognitive determinants of meaning by adopting the independence of the linguistic system. The post-structuralist scholars think that the concept of arbitrariness unsettles the meaning and exposes the indeterminacy of signification as natural, whereas Saussure tried to stabilise the sign by using the structure (Katz, 2015). Structuralism has also been criticized by phenomenological perspectives that separate language and lived experience and believe that meaning cannot be exhaustively described by abstract sign relations aloe (Stawarska, 2020)

In spite of all these criticisms, arbitrariness remains a foundational concept as it emphasises the conventionality and relationality of linguistic signs. Although sound symbolism and cognitive drives undermine its universality, it does not reduce its basic explanatory value. Instead, they developed the theory by proving that arbitrariness is a continuum property, not an absolute one. Therefore, arbitrariness remains the major and academically valuable concept of the structuralist theory and linguistics in general.

Thanks for reading

Gooya Esmaili

01/12/2025

References 

Joseph, J.E., 2022. Saussure’s dichotomies and the shapes of structuralist semiotics. Σημειωτκή-Sign Systems Studies, 50(1), pp.11-37.

Katz, J.T., 2015. Saussure at play and his structuralist and post-structuralist interpreters. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, pp.113-132.

SHI, J.L. and XIAO, J.G., The Significance and Limitation of the “Arbitrariness” Theory of Linguistic Signs Proposed by Saussure.

SHI, J.L. and XIAO, J.G., The Significance and Limitation of the “Arbitrariness” Theory of Linguistic Signs Proposed by Saussure.

Lemert, C., 2015. The Social Structure of Meanings: Ferdinand de Saussure and the Arbitrary Sign. In Thinking the Unthinkable (pp. 147-163). Routledge.

Kronenfeld, D. and Decker, H.W., 1979. Structuralism. Annual Review of Anthropology, pp.503-541.

Stawarska, B., 2020. Saussure’s Linguistics, Structuralism, and Phenomenology. Springer International Publishing.