Misunderstanding What Saussure Was "Struggling Against"

Martin (2013: 2):

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, the conception that Saussure was "struggling against" is that sign unites a thing and a name. Saussure is quite explicit that a linguistic sign is a psychological entity with two levels of abstraction: concept and sound-image. Saussure (1959: 66):

The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image. The latter is not the material sound, a purely physical thing, but the psychological imprint of the sound, the impression that it makes on our senses. The sound-image is sensory, and if I happen to call it "material," it is only in that sense, and by way of opposing it to the other term of the association, the concept, which is generally more abstract.

The psychological character of our sound-images becomes apparent when we observe our own speech. Without moving our lips or tongue, we can talk to ourselves or recite mentally a selection of verse. …

The linguistic sign is then a two-sided psychological entity that can be represented by the drawing:

The two elements are intimately united, and each recalls the other.

From the perspective of SFL Theory, these two levels of abstraction are semantics and the phonological expression of lexicogrammar, and the relation between levels of abstraction, Value and Token, is realisation, which is symbolised by a single-headed arrow ↘.

Having introduced these two levels of abstraction, Saussure makes the relation between them explicit by labelling them signified (signifié) and signifier (signifiant). Saussure (1959: 67, 114):

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.

[2] To be clear, Saussure is quite explicit about his reason for not using the word 'symbol' for the signifier. Saussure (1959: 68):

The word symbol has been used to designate the linguistic sign, or more specifically, what is here called the signifier. Principle I [the arbitrary nature of the sign] in particular weighs against the use of this term. One characteristic of the symbol is that it is never wholly arbitrary; it is not empty, for there is the rudiment of a natural bond between the signifier and the signified. The symbol of justice, a pair of scales, could not be replaced by just any other symbol, such as a chariot.