Many of the philosophies seem to believe that language shapes reality, and if he thinks that way, than maybe he would say that the world is so uncertain and constantly changing that language would be that way as well. One part that I thought was interesting in his writing was where he stated that language could destroy itself reciprocally. I believe what he means by this is that since all language is subjective, one part of language or one signifier cannot be explained with other signifiers, other words. If you try to explain what a word means, you just have to use more words. It forces us in a way to dance around a subject or a real signified because we can never express exactly what we mean.
Language is inadequate and imperfect in that way.
We are then forced to use multiple words that are generally unnecessary-or would be, if we had a perfect language, in which everybody could understand easily what exactly each word represented. We will not be able to communicate in just the way we want to because every word seems to have a different meaning to different people. The more words we use, the more unnecessary ideas we convey, contradicting ourselves with every word. It s the best we have though, and the only way really to try to understand one another and the world around us. In this way we are all what he refers to as bricoleurs because we have to do the best we can to make everybody with whom we communicate understand fully what we mean.