The inference
Manuscript §2, quoted in CLAIM-082: “Saussure’s account of linguistic value makes the significance of a sign depend upon contrasts within a system, rather than on intrinsic correspondence to a referent.” CLAIM-082 grounds on the record’s reading of Saussure, THEORY-159, whose source is the Cours, LIT-774 (read in NOTE-594).
Critical questions
- Does the work say this, read in context? No. This is the question that fails. CLAIM-072 (2026-10-09), from Part Two, ch. IV: “dans la langue il n’y a que des différences sans termes positifs” holds of the signified and the signifier considered separately; the sign that unites them is “un fait positif”, and signs are related by opposition. “Value, fixed by a term’s relations to coexisting terms, is distinct from signification, its counterpart relation to an idea: French mouton and English sheep can share a signification and differ in value.” “Saussure also brackets the referent: arbitrariness is between signifier and signified, not between sign and thing.” THEORY-159 agrees: “it says nothing about how terms relate to things”.
- Is it said within the scope the claim needs? Within one language state, yes, for value. Whether the premise reaches across languages and to utterances in use is a separate inference, to CLAIM-115, and is ARG-033.
- Does the claim lean on the reading for more than the reading holds? Yes, in two places. “Significance” blurs value with signification, and “rather than … correspondence to a referent” sets up a contrast that is not Saussure’s. CLAIM-072’s fix: “say value rather than significance, and drop the referent contrast, which is not Saussure’s.”
Rejected as an inference to CLAIM-082 as titled. The reading supports a corrected premise: a term’s value is fixed by its oppositions to the coexisting terms of one language state. THEORY-159 already holds every point of the correction, so the reading gains nothing. CLAIM-082’s title still carries the uncorrected contrast, and CLAIM-115 rests on it.