Arbitrariness of the linguistic sign

The 20th century has, indeed, marked a significant shift in both the
fields of linguistics and semiology. In this respect, the transition from
Historical Linguistics to Saussurean or Structural Linguistics
provides an alternative framework for the study of linguistic signs.
The study of signs, in this context, is not simply an investigation of
sounds, but rather an inquiry that is governed by certain principles,
such as the principle of arbitrariness. Such a principle states,
"There’s no inner relationship between the signifier and the signified
». Therefore, it is important to explore the intricacies of this principle
and demonstrate the validity and veracity of such a claim.

On the one hand, the study of signs unveils a clear distinction between
two notions, namely the signifier or the sound image and the signified
or the concept. This distinction, according to De Saussure is
arbitrary. In other terms, the relationship between the signifier and
the signified is characterized by separation and isolation. In this
sense, the principle of arbitrariness demonstrates that the mental
representation of a certain element does not necessarily signify that
particular item. For instance, « the idea of « sister » is not linked by
any inner relationship to the succession of sounds s.o.r which serves
as its signifier in French « (CLG) Language, in this context, exists in
an isolated realm: the realm of concepts and forms. Form, in this
sense, is not a mere structure of words but rather it is a succession of
sounds. Thus, the relationship between mere sounds and mental
concepts is what characterizes the principle of arbitrariness in its
various manifestations.

However, on the other hand, the principle of arbitrariness, despite its

significant contributions to the Sassurean theory, failed, to an extent,
to account for the similarity between some languages and their
linguistic signs. To illustrate, onomatopeic words such as bow bow,
tick tick, highly contribute to the assignment of meaning and reveal a
similarity between the signifier and the signified. Unlike the
structuralist claim of De Saussure, Benveniste (1966) presents a
counter-argument stating that « The connection between the signifier
and the signified is not arbitrary, on the contrary, it is necessary ».
In this respect, the necessity of the linguistic sign lies in its
significance in constructing mental images and meanings to make
sense of the world. The world, in this sense, is shaped through
linguistic structures and concepts that are meticulously interlinked to
reveal a well-established system of meanings. The linguistic sign, in
this regard, is systematic and organized in such a manner as to reveal
a clear relationship of necessity between the signifier and the
signified.

In a nutshell, while the principle of arbitrariness has, explained the

relationship between the signifier and the signified, it is still a flawed
principle that does not take into account the necessity of this
relationship in the process of making sense of the world.