abstract word iconicty

• [ ] I will turn the arbitrariness into the article. In order to discuss with mehmet hoca, prepare outline. Ask i want to write article, i am interested in this non arbitrariness. This is came up from my research. To what i turn this.
• [ ] At least read 10 article about arbitrariness
  1. Qiang, Y., Chen, W., & Li, S. (2022). Syntactic iconicity of language. Language and Linguistics, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.23977/langl.2022.050207
     1. (Qiang, Chen, & Li, 2022)
  2. Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
     1. (Perniss, Thompson, & Vigliocco, 2010)
  3. Chen, S. (2024). Arbitrariness of linguistic signs and Saussure’s philosophy of language. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 12(9), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.1209001
     1. (Chen, 2024)
  4. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. William Morrow.
     1. (Pinker, 1994).
  5. Perniss, P., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: from a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300
     1. (Perniss & Vigliocco, 2014)
  6. Nygaard, L. C., Herold, D. S., & Namy, L. L. (2009). The semantics of prosody: Acoustic and perceptual evidence of prosodic correlates to word meaning. Cognitive Science, 33(1), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01007.x
     1. (Nygaard, Herold, & Namy, 2009)
  7. Gasser, M. (2004). The origins of arbitrariness in language. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 26(26). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/34g8355v
     1. (Gasser, 2004)
  8. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford University Press.

     1. (Kramsch, 1998)

they say language is arbitrary. the word of “dog” is not look like dog. however the concept of the “dog” in the mind is exactly look like a dog.

February 23, 2025 saussure ideas were crtisizing its times contemporaary phlosphy of language ideas. at those time early 20 th century, the philosophy of language is about nomeclautirism. language is just giving name to the objects. saussure was critisizng this ideas becuase it is to simple. suasuree was thinking that language and thougths are more deeply connected. for this reason he says that words are meaningless out of langugae. he says that words are meaningful with relations with other words. he was saying that language play crutical role while understandign world(Chen, 2024). his ideas could be influenced works and studies of linguistic detmernistic whorphian ridicilous ideas.

February 23, 2025 firsr ı were trying hard to understadn saussure ideas because ı couldnot get the idea of words are meanigless out of language. becuase for me it is so intuitive to think words as a sound image of concept. later ı get that saussure were believning language and thoughts are so deeply connected. after ı see that ı make sense the language system and how words are meangful with other wprds.

February 23, 2025 but this doesnt mean that ı agree with his ideas. ı totaly disagree with arbitrarines and whorphian like thoery. there are tons of studies prove illegtimicy of whotphan, linguisitic determisnins. ı am also strongly against about linguitic determinism becuase of its politicial apllication and implicaition

While everything is there for a reason, we have an innate grammar program because it is so beneficial for evolution. Being able to communicate through socializing helps us solve tons of problems way easier than it was before. There was just one language in the first place. Chomsky's string theory of linguistics suggests that somehow all languages share the same grammatical rules (Pinker, 1994). All words are the same because they come out of the same brain. There is a specific brain region for grammar, which is shared by all human species (Pinker, 1994).

Words are put into categories—things of objects and things of action. So, if you go to an unknown tribe and see a running rabbit, and the tribe calls it "oskula," you can interpret "oskula" as running furry, running furry on the ground, animal, living thing, or a thing. But, like everyone else, you would correctly guess that "oskula" means rabbit. So, all humans share similar categories (Pinker, 1994).