The Sign is not Arbitrary

Dwight L. Bolinger


One of the cardinal assumptions of linguistics 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 inapropiate, 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.


Palabras clave

signos del lenguaje; arbitrariedad del signo; semántica

Texto completo:


Copyright (c) 2015 Dwight L. Bolinger

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.

ISSN: 0040-604X 
ISSN-e: 2462-8255