The double-articulation theory and any definition of language based upon it leaves a wide margin, for which the name ‘prosody’ is today a widespread designation. Anything may be said to be prosodic that does not fit in the monematic and phonematic segmentation; so that the American ‘suprasegmental’ is not a bad substitute. I just think nothing is gain by speaking of ‘suprasegmental phonemes’. It must, in any case, be kept in mind that some prosodic features like the intonational contours are not distinctive in the sense in which a phoneme is distinctive, but directly meaningful: a rising interrogative contour on 'you like it?' has about the same function as the 'do' of the more traditional 'do you like it?' In other words, it might be equated with a moneme, not with a phoneme. In Saussurian terms, it is a sign, a minimal sign, with a significant, the melodic rise, and a 'signifié', ‘interrogation’. The distinction should thus theoretically be made between double articulation and prosody and not, as is traditional, between phonematics and prosody. Yet this latter practise is in many respects amply justified because it is very exceptional to find as clear-cut a 'signifié' as the one corresponding to the rising interrogative contour, intonation generally lacking the discreteness of many gestures. If we consequently agree to lump together phonematics and prosody under phonology, we must point out that the distinction between the two branches of phonology is based on differences in segmentation, and that this dichotomy may at times conflict with the classification based on function.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.29-30