[…] the chief aim of language is communication; it is greatly advantageous that on the one hand something that hampers communication should be resisted and denounced, and on the other hand that something that does not should be disregarded or condoned.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.136

But communication by means of double articulation is an expensive procedure which man will tend to avoid when his needs can be satisfied through the use of simpler, more direct means, such as gestures, by themselves or supplemented by speech. Another, very effective, way of reducing the output of energy involved in communication is to rely on the situation in which the interlocutors are placed: 'very nice!' 'pooh-pooh!' 'no!' make excellent sense all by themselves among people who look at the same thing or witness the same event. This reliance on situation is so general that all languages have developed several classes of monemes whose interpretation is always dependent on situation. Such are demonstrative like 'this', 'that', except when used in reference to context, time reference like 'now', 'yesterday', 'today', 'last night' or the ‘preterite’ moneme and personal pronouns like 'I' and 'you'. The situation generally makes it so obvious who the second person subject of imperative is, that its expression is the exception rather than the rule. All these economical tricks are very welcome in linguistic practice, but they undoubtedly detract from the ideal of human communication, which is self-sufficiency.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.59-60

Languages serve many purposes […] But they are first and foremost used for communication, i.e the transmission of experience from one person to another. Communication is, of course, involved in the artistic uses we make of language, and what is not communication there belongs to the expression, a phrase which, in technical parlance, we should reserve to self-centred linguistic activity which does not aim at transferring information from speaker to hearer, but to give the former relief from internal pressures and tensions of all sort.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.21

The communication will thus take the form of a succession of monemes each corresponding to some definite element of experience. But, of course, the choice and the nature of the elements of experience will vary from one language to another.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.42

We can conclude from al this that the notion of linguistic community is not only useful, but unavoidable in linguistics as soon as language is conceived as an instrument of communication constantly adapting itself to the needs of the group who make use of it; ‘comunication’ implies ‘community’.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.107

What characterizes linguistic communication and opposes it to prelinguistic groans is precisely this analysis into a number of units which, because of their vocal nature, are to be presented successively in a linear fashion.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.22