**1.1 A signifying gestalt: the biolinguistic instantiation as one point of view/the neurophysiologic point of view**

In the horizon of the structuralist turn, analysis has been an important consequence of an intuition rethinking another domain: the consequence of hypothetic-deductive methodology on the definition of the *real object* grounding in the methodological object. First, the consequence of both representational phonology meeting the isolation of psycholinguistic empirical tokens but also inscribing language in a potential acquisition actant suggesting since the generativist turn that immanence is also a result of a biolinguistic instance [1] whose analytical component is both universal and competence/performance derivability. On the other hand, the semiotic principle, epistemologically, split up—so to speak—in paradigmatic/syntagmatic axes of analysis contributes by a new turn to emphasize the double static/dynamic structure of signification/meaning and the semiotic specificity of being a represented representation.

Beyond reflexivity principle or the consciousness basis of the semiotic principle—its object language—and beyond metalinguistic operations [2, 3], we owe this specificity to the observer/gestalt structure where schematization implies the predisposition/disposition of both mediation—interpretability. Henceforth, triggered by the semiotic principle (SP, semiotic function and semiotic stratification hierarchy), the points of view are the observer/epistemic link between real and structural object within the relation between immanence and manifestation. This link is not a faithful relation, it is defined by optimality rules, visibility/invisibility, ordering and inversion, markedness and co-selection.
