The idea that socio-semiotic phenomena, i.e., sign-governed human patterns of communication (such as culture, language, literature), could more adequately be understood and studied if regarded as systems rather than conglomerates of disparate elements has become one of the leading ideas of our time in most sciences of man. Thus, the positivistic collection of data, taken bona fide on empiricist grounds and analyzed on the basis of their material substance, has been replaced by a functional approach based on the analysis of relations. Viewing them as systems, i.e., as networks of relations that can be hypothesized for a certain set of assumed observables ("occurrences " /"phenomena"), made it possible to hypothesize how the various socio-semiotic aggregates operate. The way was subsequently opened for the achievement of what has been regarded throughout the development of modern science as a supreme goal: the detection of the laws governing the diversity and complexity of phenomena rather than the registration and classification of these phenomena. Nevertheless, in spite of common premises, the functional approach has never been quite unified. Roughly speaking, two different and incompatible programs have been circulated. I will refer to the respective programs as "the theory of static systems " vs. "the theory of dynamic systems. " The theory of static systems has wrongly been identified as the exclusive "functional " or "structural" approach, and is usually referred to as the teachings of Saussure. In Saussure's own writings and in subsequent works in his tradition, the system is conceived of as a static ("synchronic") net of relations, in which the value of each item is a function of the