语言学论文.doc

IntroductionSaussure is considered as the father of the modern linguistics and semiotics. General Linguistics, authored by Ferdinand de Saussure, is one of his book which studies linguistic signs. Arbitrariness and linear characteristics are two major principles and the keys to the correct understanding of Saussures concept of linguistic. This paper attempts to understand Saussure from the social and cultural symbols and functional linguistics perspective in order to better carry out and develop Saussures linguistic sign.1.The arbitrary symbolsSaussure is not the first scholar to study the arbitrariness of the language. The debate on the relationship between symbols and objects represented by the presence or absence in ancient Greek of the west, formed the natural theory and agreement (Lyons, 1968: 425), while in China resulted in a corresponding nominalism and realism in Qin dynasty. However, it is Whitney to propose the arbitrariness of symbols. Saussure spoke highly of Whitneys contribution, pointed out that in order to know language is a pure system, Whitney had very rightly stressed the arbitrary nature of symbols so as to linguistics at its real axis (Saussure 2002: 113).2. The deep meaning of Saussures principle of symbolic arbitrariness Saussure pointed out the concept of arbitrariness in the introduction of the general lingustics : the links of the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, in other words, what we are talking about refers to the whole of the symbols and its references, so one can simply say: the linguistic sign is arbitrary (Saussure 2002: 102). This shows that arbitrariness refers to there is no basic relationship between linguistic signs and its references or no substantive relationship, which can refer to reality. From this we can see what he says does not include iconicity of linguistic signs in the whole system status, few Onomatopoeia and the interjection as well, do not include compound words and derivatives. This means that Saussure gave the point of view from a single symbol rather than the perspective of collective symbols or structural symbols. This is the scope of arbitrary.3. Saussures opposition to the views of nominalismWhen most people get involved in the understanding of symbols, which are the combination of the signifier and the signified, they tend to name the language as a storage library set and these names are arbitrary and link to the existence of external things connected. However, in Saussures view, language is not the symbols of its links and names of things, but the concept of image and sound, and the concept itself is created by the language. Therefore, there could not be objective reality before the existence of language and symbols. This does not mean that Saussure is in the linguistic style of the idealism because Saussure said signal language is a social symbol language is the social part of speech activity semiotics studies the life of symbols in social life (Saussure, 2002: 36,238), that is to say, symbolic language is a social fact, and hence the creation of the concept of language derived from social life. On the other hand, in order to understand the principle of arbitrariness, we can not merely watch the relationship between the signifier and the siginfied (T h ibau lt, 1997: 217). Carrefour said that Saussures idea of the arbitrary nature is far beyond the mentioned relationship. He said (Culler, 1976: 23): the signifier and the signified themselves are arbitrary. Culler thought that it is because language is not simply to name the existential concept of independent arbitrarily. It established the relation of its alternative signifers arbitrarily and its optional signified freely. Different languages refer to different combinations in unique ways to split the voice and the continuum. Saussures the theory of value equals to his the theory of difference. Language, only exists differences. It is not possible to exist a sound concept before the language system , but only differences come from this system.(Saussure, 2002: 163) It is determined by the arbitrariness of symbol. As a result of the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, and everything is ambiguous before the advent of the language. When study their relationship separately, there is no early related object, that is without the basic foudations linked with certain things in the nature. Based on this understanding, only the difference theory approach can study them and provides the value of their units. It is clear that Saussures mechanism, different language have different scopes, the principle of the arbitrariness of symbols and a single system theory is in the same strain. This phenomenon reflects the users in different languages formed different analysis. Semeotics translation approach make it come into being the system of the signifier and the signified. Its theoretical foundations is translating is a transcultural activity, and semiotics is one of the transmitter of the culture, and a part of the system, so it has a conceptual meaning. Saussure held that symbol language benefit the construction of the real society. While hallday held a different idea that language system is a potential means, and it is the semantics formed the real society. And even in todays cognitive language. Studies on the cognitive analysis of language is arbitrary concept of such a supplement. The principle of arbitrary symbols that explore the relationship between language and culture is an important inspiration. It can be said the Theory of Relativity in Edward Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is the development of Saussures principle, and its significance is more instructive to understand the differences and to explore the causes of differences, as well as the relationship of language, thinking style and culture (高艺红, 2000: 209), and thus to some extent, it says that different languages cut the meaning of continuum in different ways. And socio-cultural information is provided by a variety of symbol systems. Social and cultural information can be displayed. So the difficulties of translation, regardless of language barriers or cultural barriers, in the final analysis are the the transformation of symbols of different cultures in the patterns of behaviour. But on the other hand, as a result of texts written in other symbols are different in another language system. Therefore, it is fundamental to show different language symbols due to differences in patterns of behavior. This means that from the perspective of semiotics, two absolute inter-language translation equivalent does not exist(郑伟波, 1988). The original fundamental reason is language is different continuum segmentations. Different structure of the language system of socio-cultural system will come differences in each types. In other words, due to different cultures, language, and writing system, absolute translation equivalence does not exist.The concept of symbol system is implied in the principle of arbitrariness of Saussure. First of all, that is, linguistic signs is a complete system, which will be part of system on premise of the existence of a whole. In the General Linguistics(Saussure, 2002:159) he wrote: We must be incidental to the overall point, it increases to analyze the elements it contains. In other words, language at all times show a certain form of organization, Saussure called the intrinsic organizations of the language system, which is the language of Saussures principle of systemic signs. Saussure said here system, in fact, refers to the abstract language system at the time of a total self-contained system. It is a means by including two aspects and the meaning of individual symbols system. Later, the majority of linguists regarded language as a system of the system, which Is the language units give its order according to a certain levels of related arrangement. This, the concept of language system more clearly tend to refer to a combination of clearer line order or structure.Later, the concept of system hasa new definition given by schools of London. Firth named the paradigmatic relationships between languages called system, and called Syntagmatic relationship as the structure.(Butler, 1985: 6). Based on this proposition, H jelm slev proposed language symbols at two levels - Expression and content, four key areas - Forms of expression, expressive entities, the form of contents and the entity of the content. Halliday further developed the linguistic signsystem-level concept. He believed that language is a system composed of various subsystems and multi-level network systems. For Saussure,language is derived from the use of symbols, focusing on specific things in common discourse, and do not focus on specific words in the context of the study. The difference is, with Saussure and Halliday whether to enrich the language system and make it more complex or not. Halliday believes that the system exists in all languages level, such as the semantic layer, grammar and phonology layer. (Halliday 1994).The value, being a system , is multi-owned, while the meaning, belongs to language and be specific. But the value is a part of the meaning, so this also shows the necessity and rationality of the dynamics of language use studied from the system. Since he recognized the value is part of the meaning, and stressed the value of language is a pure system, which means that Saussure did not ignore the significance of the research of the meaning. He just studied the meaning by studying the structure of language, including the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations(T h ibau lt1997). From the above analysis we can see, Saussures discourse on the language of symbols is beyond the means of referring to the general understanding of the relationship between his arbitrary principle with his view of the entire language of symbols. In order to grasp the deep meaning of this opinion, Saussures theory goes beyond the key symbol. The emergence of Prague School, Copenhagen, Hagen School, London School of Systemic