ABSTRACT
Basic property of linguistic signs, meaning that between the signifier (=sound shape, shape of the sign) and the signified ( signifier vs signified) there is an arbitrary, rather than a natural, i.e. iconical, relationship. Depending on the theoretical standpoint, this arbitrariness refers either to the relationship between linguistic signs and the extralinguistic reality or to the relationship between a linguistic sign and its meaning. De Saussure (1916) uses arbitrariness for the relationship between the sound shape (image acoustique) and the concept. As proof for this assumption of arbitrariness, he adduces the fact that the same object in reality has different names in different languages. Arbitrariness does not mean that the individual speaker can proceed quite freely in the choice of linguistic constructions: from the standpoint of language acquisition and communication, the speaker experiences the connection between sign and meaning as customary and obligatory. The arbitrariness of the linguistic sign corresponds its ‘nonmotivatedness’ ( motivation), which is, however, relativized in word formation, e.g. in compounds such as living room, or in onomatopoeic expressions such as miaow and crash ( onomatopoeia). In this connection, one speaks of ‘secondary motivation.’ For another view see Wright (1976).
