The Principle of

Arbitrariness
Ferdinand De Saussure
We know that signifier stands for the signified.
But Saussure and his follower semioticians believe that
there is no necessary, intrinsic, direct or inevitable
relationship between the signifier and the signified.

He discussed this in his principle of Arbitrariness.

He said this arbitrariness of the sign specifically works
on the LINK between the signifier and the signified.

He focused on linguistic signs and saw language as the

most important sign-system

And he said arbitrary nature of the sign was the FIRST

principle of language.(later Charles Hockett identified arbitrariness as
the key ‘design feature’ of language.
Arbitrariness helps to account for the extraordinary
versatility of language.

Saussure said there is no transparent, inherent, or

natural connection between the signifier or the signified
(between the sound or shape of a word and the concept to which it refers).
Saussure himself avoids directly relating the principle
of arbitrariness to the relationship between language
and an external world.

In language the form of the signifier is not determined

by what it signifies. Nothing is ‘treeish’ about the word
‘tree’.

Language differ in how they refer to the same referent.

No specific signifier is ‘naturally’ more suited to a
signified than any other signifier

Any signifier could represent any signified.

The process which selects one particular sound

–sequence to correspond to one particular idea is
completely arbitrary.
Aristotle noted before that ‘there can be no natural
connection between the sound of any language and the
things signified’.

In Plato’s Cratylus Hermogenes urged Socrates to

accept that ‘whatever name you give to a thing is its
right name; and if you give up that name and change it
for another, the later name is no less correct than the
earlier, just as we change the name of your servants; for
I think no name belongs to a particular thing by nature’.
Shakespeare
‘That which we call a rose by any name would smell as
sweet.’

As we can see that the notion of arbitrariness is not new

but the way Saussure emphasized it is his original
contribution, particularly in the context of a theory
which bracketed the referent.
Although Saussure prioritized speech, he also
emphasized that ‘the signs used in writing are arbitrary.
The letter t, for instance, has no connection with the
sound it denotes’.
Saussure illustrated the principle of arbitrariness at the
lexical level- in relation to individual words as signs.

He did not argue that syntax is arbitrary.

However, the principle of arbitrariness can be applied

not only to individual sign, but to the whole
sign-system.
Each language involves different distinctions between
one signifier and another (tree/free) and between one
signified and another (tree/bush)

And it makes the fundamental arbitrariness of language

apparent.
According to Saussure, if words had to represent
concept fixed in advance, than we could find
equivalents for them easily.

But that is not the case.

No two language categorize reality in the same way.

“Language differ by differentiating differently” -(John

Passmore)
If arbitrariness of the relationship between signifier
and signified is accepted, then it can be argued
counter-intuitively that the signified is determined by
the signifier rather than vice-versa.

Some commentators oppose the thought that signifier

and signified is always completely arbitrary and has
one to one relationship.
Because within a single language one signifier may
refer to many signifieds or one signified may be
referred to by many signifiers.

Saussure though sticks to the point that ‘the entire

linguistic system is founded upon the irrational
principle that the sign is arbitrary’.

If this view is accepted than there will be chaos within

the language system. Completely arbitrary language
system would destroy its communicative function.
Saussure concedes that ‘there exists no language in
which nothing at all is motivated’

Saussure admits that ‘a language is not completely

arbitrary; for the system has a certain rationality’.

The arbitrariness does not mean that the form of a word

is accidental or random.
While the sign is not determined extralinguistically, it
is subject to intralinguistic determination.

For instance, signifiers must constitute well-formed

combinations of sounds which conform with existing
patterns within the language in question.

Screwdriver, Wristwatch…… (e.g. explain)

 Saussure introduced a distinction between the degree of
arbitrariness-

Intrinsically arbitrary (unmotivated) and

relatively arbitrary

* Not all signs are absolutely arbitrary. There are factors that allow us to recognize
different degree of arbitrariness. The sign may be motivated to a certain extent.
 Relatively Arbitrary

Saussure then modified his stance and refers to signs as

being ‘relatively arbitrary’.

-traffic light, Red

-black to mourn
-natural language (exception- ‘Morse code’ made historically)
These are not arbitrary, made based on some reasons and cannot be arbitrarily
changed.
Moreover from the point of view of the linguistic
community ‘ a signifier is rather imposed than freely
chosen’. Because a language is always inheritance from
the past, which its users have no choice but to accept.

Linguistic signs are arbitrary because they are based on

tradition.
But the arbitrary principle does not mean that an
individual can arbitrarily choose any signifier for a
given signified.

The relation between a signifier its signified is not a

matter of individual choice. If yes than communication
would become impossible.

We do not create the language for ourselves

The Saussurian legacy of the arbitrariness of signs
leads semioticians to stress that the relationship
between the signifier and the signified is conventional-
dependent on social and cultural conventions which
have to be learned.

A word means that it does to us only because we

collectively let it to do so.
Saussure felt that the main concern of semiotics should
be ‘the whole group of systems grounded in the
arbitrariness of the sign’.

In this sense linguistics serves as a model for the whole

of semiology, even though languages represent only
one type of semiological system.