We are in the conflict, entering a great difficulty that lies in the distinction that should be drawn between, on the one hand, the language itself, i.e. the cognitive processes own the phrase, and, on the other hand, the unspeakable languages and arbitrarily encoded by all societies, in one or another moment in its history, languages chairing the dialogue carefully. I insist on the fact of putting them on guard because we have real obstacle to the extent where the processes that we are going to try to track down talking about languages, are not manifested that invested in applications coded in an almost incalculable number. That is well understood in English it says water as that in French it says eau, difference, certainly a manifest difference of vocabulary which relieves herself, to Sociology (more exactly to Sociolinguistics). Without however is essential to conceive both the one and the other to testify the same capacity of the sign. They now see where is coming from the difficulty: must not impute to sign what comes to their use, and, therefore, get to put parentheses, mentally, everything that makes that water and eau are, sociologically, two words that belong to two different languages. It is necessary to recognize that this part of the tongue is very delicate to make it! Let’s begin by clarify the traditional definition of the sign as an Association of sound and sense.

Currently we know that this definition is totally inadequate: since the beginning of the 20th century, indeed, more exactly from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, know that that sound and that sense are scanned each other, i.e. you can not cut into both sides of the sign does not automatically cut the other. To give you an image that will help them to understand this phenomenon, write, for example, on a piece of cardboard the word maintenant, and armed with a scissors, cut this word after the main syllable: you will be on one side, a word that would be opposed, in a system of the French, tete, pied, jambe, etc.