In this way one becomes possible to explain the analogy of that thought and speaks is indissociveis; nor always one depends on the others because thinking it can be express for as much other languages. With this we adopt, also, the thought of Santaella on the social system in that we live, therefore we are, in fact, predestinold to only receive languages that we do not help to produce, and are bombed by messages that serve to the inculcao of values that if give to the game of interests of the proprietors of the means of production of language and not to the users. Soon, we nail in them to the quarrel of that this comes in such a way if aggravating that the interests of the great social mass are ' ' desnutrida' ' of importance before these reasons, that emit a contradictory direction of the language. This because in the exercise of the modern communication the language seems to be ' ' desfigurada' ' of felt or ' ' sobrecarregada' ' others, come to bring privileges only to the only interests of the classroom manipulates that it. That is, it is as if the sign in the language, pparently, was not transmitting a referring ideal.

For as many times that the communication ' ' dominante' ' it appears as noise, to the incompreenso of ' ' massa.' ' We know that the semiotics studies the social phenomena of form more including that the lingustica. In parts, it, goes to deal with the interpretation of the messages. All its quarrel takes us to understand it and ' ' criticar' ' practical of the actions the politics and the symbolism of the language, in one it forms of ' ' refletir' ' on the way as the language if it materializes in the ideology and as this manifest ideology if in the language.