The following essay wants to draw attention to the relation between motivation and ar-bitrariness within complex linguistic signs. Modern linguistics tries to establish motivation within the language system and by this often seems to negotiate arbitrariness. Bolinger claimed in 1980: “Arbitrary and conventional is a fitting description of distinctive sounds, less so of words, even less of sentences, and beyond that scarcely fits at all“ (Fischer & Nänny, 1999, p. xxi). Dirven and Verspoor proclaim that “most of the complex forms of lan-guage…are…not arbitrary, but transparent or motivated“ (Dirven & Verspoor, p. 21).
Motivation is used to construct convincing explanations for sometimes mystified phe-nomena in a language. Motivated by C.S. Peirce’s sign system, linguistic signs are recently moved from a box signed ‘symbol’ into a box signed ‘icon’. Language by this is meant to be a more or less predictable act, which is based on translucent regularities and ordering princi-ples. Structural similarities are the basis of motivation, which examines and proclaims ordeing principles in all spheres of the language: phonology, morphology, lexicon and semantics Motivation even obstructs the syntax of a language.
Three main ideas underlie the principle of motivation: (i) sequential ordering, (ii) quan-tity and (iii) proximity. Simplified, the ideas can be summarized as follows: (i) arrangement of linguistic elements according to temporal events, like he opened the door and came in or veni, vidi, vici; (ii) the amount of meaning is reflected in the amount of linguistic form , like I go – I went – I had gone or a car – a green car – a green convertible; (iii) conceptual distance is reflected in formal distance, like I made her leave – I wanted her to leave – I wished she would leave.
Essential to all three principles of iconicity is the kind of motivation they supply. What can be identified by sequential ordering, quantity and proximity is the formal and conceptual structure of a linguistic sign. Metaphorically speaking, motivation provides the bones (formal structure) and the muscles (conceptual structure) to complex linguistic sign. What motiva-tion can neither answer nor negotiate is the question of element’s arbitrariness, and why a certain concept is conventionally linked to a representing sound pattern. Moreover, it is the arbitrary character of simplex forms, which enables the understanding of complex signs.
The aim of this paper is to raise an awareness for the inseparable connection of arbi-trariness and motivation in the analysis of complex signs. This aim will be achieved in three steps. First, the distinction between simplex and complex sign is focused, followed by a short introduction of the linguistic sign and a simplified understanding of language. Beyond, two important possibilities of analyzing linguistic signs and language are proposed: a sign inter-nal and a sign related analysis. In a second step, arbitrariness and motivation are correlated to the two processes of analyzing a language. In a last step, the thesis will be exemplified.
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION
2 LANGUAGE AND THE LINGUISTIC SIGN
2.1 SIMPLEX AND COMPLEX
2.2 THE LINGUISTIC SIGN
2.3 LANGUAGE
2.4 SIGN INTERNAL AND SIGN RELATED ANALYSIS
3 ARBITRARINESS AND MOTIVATION
3.1 SIGN INTERNAL ANALYSIS AND ARBITRARINESS
3.1.1 How to Define Arbitrariness
3.1.2 Sign Internal: Arbitrariness and Convention
3.2 SIGN RELATED ANALYSIS AND MOTIVATION
3.2.1 How to Define Motivation
3.2.2 Sign Related: Motivation
3.3 SIGN INTERNAL AND SIGN RELATED ANALYSIS OF A COMPLEX SIGN
3.4 FIRST CONCLUSIONS
4 EXEMPLIFICATION
4.1 THE CONCEPT *MOVE RHYTHMICALLY TO MUSIC* AND ITS SOUND PATTERN
4.1.1 Internal Structure of /d a: n s/
4.2 THE CONCEPT *PERSON MOVING RHYTHMICALLY TO MUSIC* AND ITS SOUND PATTERN
4.2.1 Compositionality
4.2.2 Associative Relations
4.2.3 Motivation of the Internal Structure of /d a: n s /.
4.3 STRUCTURAL MOTIVATION AND CONVENTIONALIZED ARBITRARINESS
4.3.1 Structural Motivation of /d a: n s /
4.3.2 Arbitrariness of /d a: n s / and / /
5 THE ESSENCE
5.1 STRUCTURAL MOTIVATION OF COMPLEX SIGNS
5.2 ARBITRARY RELATION OF CONSTITUENT UNITS
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This thesis examines the fundamental relationship between motivation and arbitrariness within complex linguistic signs. It aims to demonstrate that while structural motivation provides a transparent framework for understanding complex lexical units, these units remain anchored in the intrinsically arbitrary nature of their constituent parts, ultimately arguing that both principles are essential for language functionality.
- Distinction between simplex and complex linguistic signs
- Analysis of sign internal (arbitrariness) versus sign related (motivation) processes
- Application of compositionality and associative relations in language
- Examination of sound patterns and conceptual mappings
- Structural motivation as a reconstructive tool for meaning
Excerpt from the Book
3.3 Sign Internal and Sign Related Analysis of a Complex Sign
Sign internal and sign related analysis are performed together, especially when analysing complex signs, composed of two or more elements. Considering the sound pattern of a complex exclusively, the connection to its concept cannot be diverted. Thus, the sign internal analysis of the complex provides an arbitrary concept-sound pattern relation. It is important to understand that sign internal analysis only considers the single linguistic sign and tries to find natural links between the concept and the sound pattern. Without associative relations to other words and the principle of compositionality, a complex sign in itself is intrinsically arbitrary.
Language consists of a huge amount of linguistic signs and hence, a sign internal analysis is a rather theoretical assumption. Each sign will automatically be put into comparison to other signs and so become the subject of a sign related analysis. Compared to other utterances, the structure of a complex becomes transparent and its elements are recognizable. Sign related analysis thus provides the formal structure of the complex sign, by identifying its elements. According to the principle of isomorphism, difference or similarity in form reflects difference or similarity in meaning. Due to this, the conceptual structure of the complex can be analysed as well.
In a next step, a second sign internal analysis takes place. This time the identified elements are analysed, in order to provide their concepts and meanings. It is necessary to identify the element’s concepts, because so far the complex is motivated only in formal and conceptual structure. Semantics are not yet considered, because they cannot be provided from the arrangement of the elements within the complex. Therefore, a second sign internal relation has to identify the character of the elements. This second sign internal analysis will again show an arbitrary and conventional character of the elements, but provides the meaning of the elements.
Summary of Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION: This chapter establishes the core research interest concerning the interplay between arbitrariness and motivation, positioning the study within modern linguistic frameworks.
2 LANGUAGE AND THE LINGUISTIC SIGN: This section defines key terminology including simplex vs. complex signs and introduces the dual methodology of sign internal and sign related analysis.
3 ARBITRARINESS AND MOTIVATION: This chapter correlates sign internal analysis with arbitrariness and sign related analysis with motivation, exploring their specific roles in linguistic structure.
4 EXEMPLIFICATION: Using the concept of dancing, this chapter applies the theoretical framework to demonstrate how complex structures are motivated through compositionality and association.
5 THE ESSENCE: This concluding chapter synthesizes findings, reinforcing that motivation and arbitrariness are not contradictory, but complementary forces in creating meaningful linguistic signs.
Keywords
Arbitrariness, Motivation, Linguistic Sign, Complex Signs, Simplex, Sign Internal Analysis, Sign Related Analysis, Compositionality, Associative Relations, Isomorphism, Iconicity, Semantics, Sound Pattern, Conceptual Structure, Morphology
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this thesis?
The work investigates the dynamic relationship between arbitrariness and motivation within complex linguistic signs, aiming to show how these concepts interact in language analysis.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The main themes include Saussurean linguistics, the structure of linguistic signs, the principle of compositionality, and the role of iconicity in word formation.
What is the primary research goal?
The primary goal is to demonstrate that complex signs are structurally motivated, while their constituent elements remain fundamentally arbitrary, thus proving both concepts are necessary.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The study employs a dual-analytical approach: sign internal analysis, which examines individual signs, and sign related analysis, which compares complex structures to other words in the system.
What topics are discussed in the main part?
The main part covers the theoretical definitions of arbitrariness and motivation, detailed exemplification through the analysis of the word "dancer," and the structural decomposition of signs.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include arbitrariness, motivation, linguistic sign, compositionality, isomorphism, and complex signs.
How does "sign internal analysis" differ from "sign related analysis"?
Sign internal analysis focuses on the connection between a single concept and its sound pattern (arbitrariness), whereas sign related analysis examines the relationships between components of a complex sign to reveal structural regularities (motivation).
Why is the word "dancer" used as a specific example?
It serves as an ideal case study to illustrate how a complex sign can be broken down into a root (dance) and an agentive suffix (-er), demonstrating both compositionality and associative relations.
Does the author argue that motivation replaces arbitrariness?
No, the author explicitly argues that they cannot be substituted for each other, describing motivation as the "bones" and "muscles" and arbitrariness as the "flesh" of a linguistic sign.
What role do associative relations play in understanding language?
Associative relations allow speakers to relate new or complex words to existing, similarly structured vocabulary, providing the necessary context to make complex signs transparent and understandable.
- Quote paper
- Tilo Voltz (Author), 2008, Arbitrariness and Complex Signs, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/119708
