ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-NAV-G02-012 · ATLAS 259

Arbitrariness

Arbitrariness concerns the absence of a necessary resemblance between a linguistic sign's form and meaning.

Part of the subject path Philosophy of Language, Thought and Knowledge

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

G · Foundational concept R2 · Necessary foundation

Arbitrariness provides a foundation for separating conventional sign relations from individual caprice. A form need not be naturally dictated by its referent, yet speakers cannot replace it at will. This distinction supports iconicity, sound symbolism and socially shared meaning.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Arbitrariness concerns the absence of a natural or necessary bond between a sign’s form and meaning. In the Saussurean context, this is the relation between signifier and signified. A form not being dictated by what it signifies does not mean that individual speakers can change it at will: shared usage constrains choice. The contrast with iconicity concerns possible motivation through resemblance; it is not a contrast between meaninglessness and meaningfulness. This entry therefore treats arbitrariness as a property of a sign relation, not an accusation of caprice.

Movement of thought

1. Distinguish sign form from attributed meaning. 2. Ask whether a necessary natural connection exists. 3. Consider the binding force of convention. 4. Assess any claimed resemblance separately.

Scientific use case

A sign analysis could describe conventional assignments and claimed iconic resemblances separately within the same material.

Example

Constructed: Two invented speech communities call the same newly introduced game piece “lum” and “tak”. None of its properties requires either sound sequence.

Counterexample

A speaker cannot change an established name for everyone simply by privately preferring another.

Distinction

Distinguish arbitrariness from individual choice, randomness and absence of meaning. Iconicity requires its own analysis of the motivating relationship.

Effect on thought and perception

The distinction can reveal how a binding convention develops without natural necessity.

Resonance

A shared name binds us although the things themselves did not prescribe it.

Provenance

Parallel source review reconciled 2026-10-07; human specialist review not claimed.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Arbitrariness“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-NAV-G02-012. ATLAS 259, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G02-012

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-NAV-G02-012

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.