Final answer:
Linguistic symbols are considered non-representational because they don't inherently resemble the objects or concepts they describe but rather rely on social agreement within language communities. These symbols play a critical role in how languages categorize the world and influence cognitive processes, despite sharing certain linguistic universals grounded in human biology.
Step-by-step explanation:
Linguistic symbols are said to be non-representational because they do not resemble the object or concept they represent. In other contexts, 'non-representational' may reference art that does not visually correspond to objects in the natural world, but in linguistics, it highlights the abstract nature of linguistic representation. Unlike objects with inherent visual cues, linguistic symbols rely on agreed-upon meanings within a language community to communicate about both concrete and abstract topics.
The non-representational nature of linguistic symbols means they are arbitrary and must be learned as part of understanding a language. This arbitration is evident in how different languages categorize and describe the world. The division of color or spatial organization, and the discussion of abstract concepts like emotions or social relationships, are all filtered through the linguistic structures and vocabularies unique to each language. The classic example is the word 'love' which in English conveys a deep, affectionate emotion, yet 'love' as a word does not inherently possess any of the qualities of the emotion it represents.
Linguistic Universals and Cognitive Perception
All languages contain linguistic universals, elements that exist due to our common human biology, perceptions, and cognitive capabilities. For example, while the categorization of color can differ across languages, the perception of color is grounded in our human visual system, which is generally the same across cultures. These universals are fascinating for linguists, as are the various ways languages can shape cognitive perception and thought patterns, evidenced by ongoing research in linguistic relativity.