I don’t operate with isomorfic systems. I don’t think that whatever is good for the signifiantis good for the signifié.
I have a sign and my sign has signifiant-signifié and my point of view is that they shouldn’t be put on the same level, because as soon as the unit is a significant unit, the meaning of that unit is decisive, not the form.
With the double articulation you start from the sentence, that is, a text or a segment of a text, in which the relationships have a status. They have sense within this status.
So, that’s the first part of it and then the second part is the second articulation, which is very different, which has no bearing upon meaning at all.
I see no relationship between the two sides. I don’t care about presenting something which is not symmetrical. Nature is not symmetrical and language is not symmetrical.
On the one hand it is necessary to have a lot of distinct significant units, because you have to describe the world. On the other hand you have a minimal number of distinctive units because those are the tools, plain tools with no function, no value, except in reference to expressing the world.
André Martinet
(Scienze della natura e scienze delle culture, Conversazione con André Martinet – Testo integrale su http://segmenti.blogspot.it/2013/03/andre-martinet5-la-lingua-non-e.html ; Intervista integrale su www.segmenti.blogspot.com – in via di pubblicazione)
Follow
