The sign is not arbitrary.

Resumen

One of the cardinal assumptions ofq is that the signs of language are, by and large, not appropriate to the meanings that they convey. I do not mean that linguists have assumed that signs are inappropriate , but only that there is no bond between the sign and its meaning which could not as well be dissolved in favor of some other sign with the same meaning: perro is a historical accident that has perpetuated itself, but has no more intrinsic right to symbolize 'perro' than has, say, becerro or alma.