Misunderstanding The Saussurean Sign

Martin (2013: 2-3):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, in the passages just cited, Saussure was not concerned with the sign as signified and signifier, but with language as thought and sound; see the previous two posts.

[2] This "important implication" does not follow, even if Saussure had been concerned with the sign instead of language. To be clear, the signified and the signifier are distinct levels of abstraction that together constitute the sign, like meaning and form, and as such, can be referred to as distinct levels. What "matters in linguistics", in this context, is the opposition of the sign to signified and signifier, and the opposition of the signified and signifier to each other. Saussure (1959: 67):

Ambiguity would disappear if the three notions involved here were designated by three names, each suggesting and opposing the others. I propose to retain the word sign [signe] to designate the whole and to replace concept and sound-image respectively by signified [signifié] and signifier [signifiant] ; the last two terms have the advantage of indicating the opposition that separates them from each other and from the whole of which they are parts.

Moreover, this is the principle of valeur applied to the words of the theory itself. The valeur of the word 'sign' is its relation to the words 'signified' and 'signifier', and vice versa, and the valeur of the words 'signified' and 'signifier' is their relation to each other.