Our distinction of three types, autonomous monemes, dependents and functionals, is based upon syntactic autonomy.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.48

Syntactic autonomy is thus the criterion which, in all cases, and particularly in formally complex ones, will prove the presence or the absence of a functional. In a context like 'the hunter was killing a bear with is spear', neither 'the' nor 'a' are finctionals, since they do not grant 'hunter' or 'bear' any syntactic autonomy: exchanging the place of 'the hunter' and 'a bear' will result in conveying a totally different experience; 'with', on the contrary, makes it possible to place the phrase 'with his spear' practically anywhere without changing its relation to the rest of the sentence.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.52

The criterion of the syntactic autonomy points to a threefold distinction among monemes: we have first monemes that carry within themselves the indication of their own function and which we shall designate as autonomous monemes […] Next, we have monemes that do not imply any definite relation to the rest of the utterance and will therefore be available for several different functions […] These monemes could be called dependants […] Last, we have monemes which secure autonomy for other monemes to which they are attached, by indicating their function, i.e. their relation to the rest of the utterance […] These we shall call functional monemes, functional indicators, or just functional.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.45

What has led us to stress the importance of syntactic autonomy is the realization that this autonomy is the test that of an utterance corresponding to a given element of the experience contains all that is needed for marking its relation to the rest. It is a guarantee that the hearers will be in a position to reserve the process through which the speaker breaks down his previously unanalysed experience into a number of elements for which the language he uses offers equivalents.
- Martinet (1962), a pag.57