O movimento arbitr??rio da l??ngua em Saussure

Abstract

O conceito saussuriano de arbitrariedade do signo j?? foi objeto de um extenso n??mero de trabalhos. Saussure colocou o princ??pio na base de toda sua teoriza????o, mas n??o tardou para surgirem grandes dificuldades em compreender como ele se enquadra no conjunto da teoria, apresentando-se como extremamente paradoxal e sendo submetido a escrut??nio por uma s??rie de int??rpretes. A obra de Saussure ?? fundamentalmente cercada de controv??rsias, em vista do Curso de Lingu??stica Geral (CLG), obra que n??o foi escrita por ele, e em virtude de uma quantidade ??mpar de manuscritos surgidos ap??s os anos 50 e, mais recentemente, em 1996. Com as novas contribui????es, hoje retoma-se a teoria para elucidar novos fatos. Assim, esta tese discute o conceito de arbitrariedade do signo, procurando encontrar o lugar que lhe cabe. Partimos do exame do CLG, do Escritos de Lingu??stica Geral (ELG), com apoio nos cadernos de alunos, e de leituras de int??rpretes saussurianos, para apresentar uma proposta sobre o lugar do conceito na teoria. H?? quatro problemas principais para a compreens??o do arbitr??rio: 1) um aparente paradoxo: Saussure combate a vis??o nomenclaturista, mas apresenta provas que fazem supor a exist??ncia de um significado existente a priori, universal, antes da conjuga????o do fato lingu??stico, o que contradiz a teoria. Surge, ent??o, o problema de saber como, no conjunto da obra, Saussure responde ?? complexa quest??o da rela????o da l??ngua com a realidade; 2) com a afirma????o de que todo signo ?? motivado no sistema e com o conceito de arbitr??rio relativo, ?? dif??cil ver um lugar para o arbitr??rio absoluto na l??ngua; 3) o conceito cl??ssico de convencionalidade ?? reformulado por Saussure, sem que ele teorize suficientemente essa mudan??a, gerando o problema de saber em que consiste a diferen??a e 4) tamb??m n??o h?? teoriza????o suficiente de Saussure sobre a rela????o entre semiologia e lingu??stica. Concluimos, a partir do exame desses problemas, que o arbitr??rio ?? entre significante e materialidade da l??ngua, o que nem sempre ?? visto com clareza. Entre eles a rela????o ?? arbitr??ria e, considerando o postulado da transmiss??o da l??ngua, visto que ela se materializa na fala e por ela se transmite, o arbitr??rio ?? princ??pio semiol??gico de base, sempre presente na transmiss??o (diacr??nico), causando efeitos no plano sincr??nico. Pela reformula????o do conceito de convencionalidade, Saussure se desloca para o plano da l??ngua, tomada pela sua mat??ria sonora, deixando o plano do significado (sem significante) a outro campo de estudos. Concluimos que o arbitr??rio do signo na lingu??stica refere-se ?? rela????o entre significante e materialidade da l??ngua.Saussure ??s arbitrariness of the sign concept has been the focus of great debate. For him, it was a key concept, but many difficulties in understanding its place in the theory have soon arisen. The concept was considered extremely paradoxical, leading to much scrutiny by many authors. Saussure ??s work is fundamentally involved in controversies due to the Course in General Linguistics (CLG), which was not written by himself, and also because of a great amount of his manuscripts which appeared after the 1950 ??s, and more recently, in 1996. Due to these additional contributions, there are current efforts to unveil new facts. Based on this panorama, this thesis discusses the arbitrariness of the sign with the intention of showing how the concept fits into the theory. This work is fundamentally based on the CLG and the Writings in General Linguistics (WGL), also taking some students ?? notebooks in order to present a plan about the place of the concept in the theory. There are four main problems for understanding the arbitrariness of the sign: 1) an apparent paradox: Saussure condemns a nomenclaturist view of language, but presents examples that make believe there is a universal, a priori meaning before any linguistic fact, which is in contradiction with his theory. Therefore, there is the problem of knowing how Saussure understands the relationship between language and reality in his work; 2) by saying that all signs are motivated in the system, and with the concept of relative arbitrariness, it is difficult to see a place for absolute arbitrariness; 3) the classical philosophical concept of conventionalism is redefined by Saussure, but without him sufficiently theorizing about it, which caused the problem of knowing where the difference lies, and 4) there is also insufficient theorization by Saussure about the relationship of semiology and linguistics. By examining these issues, the conclusion is that the arbitrariness of the sign was thought by Saussure considering the signifying in its relationship with language sound (its materiality), and this has not always been clearly seen. The relationship between them is arbitrary and, considering that language is materially transmitted through speech, the arbitrariness of the sign is a semiological principle underlying language, always present through transmission (diachronically), causing effects on the synchronic plan. By redefining the concept of conventionality, Saussure places himself on the language side, from the point of view of the sound, leaving the signified (without signifying) to another field of study. Our conclusion is that, in linguistics, the arbitrariness of the sign refers to the connection between the signifying and the materiality of language