Вопросы к экзамену

1. The notions of a linguistic sign, a concept and a denotatum.

2. Relations among a linguistic sign, a concept and a denotatum.

3. The difference between the denotative and connotative meanings of a linguistic sign.

4. Mental concept of a linguistic sign.

There are many models of the linguistic sign (see also sign (semiotics)). A classic model is the one by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. According to him, language is made up of signs and every sign has two sides (like a coin or a sheet of paper, both sides of which are inseparable):

the signifier (French signifiant), the "shape" of a word, its phonic component, i.e. the sequence of graphemes (letters), e.g., <"c">-<"a">-<"t">, or phonemes (speech sounds), e.g. /kæt/ the signified (French signifié), the ideational component, the concept or object that appears in our minds when we hear or read the signifier e.g. a small domesticated feline (The signified is not to be confused with the "referent". The former is a "mental concept", the latter the "actual object" in the world) Saussure's understanding of sign is called the two-side model of sign. Furthermore, Saussure separated speech acts (la parole) from the system of a language (la langue). Parole was the free will of the individual, whereas langue was regulated by the group, albeit unknowingly. Saussure also postulated that once the convention is established, it is very difficult to change, which enables languages to remain both static, through a set vocabulary determined by conventions, and to grow, as new terms are needed to deal with situations and technologies not covered by the old. ccording to Saussure, the relation between the signifier and the signified is "arbitrary", i.e. there is no direct connection between the shape and the concept (cf. Bussmann 1996: 434). For instance, there is no reason why the letters C-A-T (or the sound of these phonemes) produce exactly the image of the small, domesticated animal with fur, four legs and a tail in our minds. It is a result of "convention": speakers of the same language group have agreed (and learned) that these letters or sounds evoke a certain image.Compare an aerial drawing of London (field of potential signifieds) with a grid (field of signifiers) placed on it. The grid is arbitrary. Its structure (however motivated) divides the drawing into areas (which can then be referred to). The division of the drawing is arbitrary. A square 'EC1' is an inseparable fusion of grid and area of drawing i.e. is a sign - just like two sides of the same sheet of paper - which refers to 'real' land. EC1 does not have to refer to the particular part of London it does. Drawing + grid = map = language. Two concepts are often cited to disprove Saussure’s claim, however, he provides reasons as to why these concepts are irrelevant. They are:

• Onomatopoeia, Which applies only in a very limited number of cases, and stems from phonetic approximation of sounds, which can themselves evolve into a more standard linguistic sign, and

• Interjections, Which fall much to the same logic as onomatopoeia, as is demonstrated by comparisons of the same expression in two languages (e.g. the French aïe and the English ouch).Likewise, the figures made in writing are arbitrary, and not connected to the sounds which they inspire. The only requirement is the ability to differentiate between separate figures, such as t, l and f, and that the difference in the symbols is understood by the collective consciousness (i.e. that "i" is recognized as "i" by all members of the community, no matter what word it is placed in).