A Brief Saussurean Analysis of I Love You, Man

After reading Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, I felt that I had a basic understanding of his "sign, signified, signifier" concept, along with the arbitrary nature of these signs and how they are dependent upon their difference from other signs, relative to the language structure as a whole. I did, however, wonder how Saussure would explain other elements of linguistics; for example, signs that are homophones. We, as speakers and listeners, recognize the difference between a homophone like tear (as in "teardrop") and tier according to the context that the sign is placed in. I suppose that this fact emphasizes and supports Saussure's idea of the arbitrary nature of language in that signs can be exactly the same (a potential source of confusion), and we are still able to distinguish what is being signified based upon the signs difference when placed in various contexts.
I am uncertain how his system explains linguistic parts of speech like determiners, conjunctions, prepositions, etc., since these do not signify a concept; however, these are all members of a closed class that we have all agreed upon. I suppose that these parts of speech potentially represent concepts in that, for example, a determiner can "specify" or "generalize" a sign. In this sense, "specification" and "generalization" could be seen as concepts.
I thought that applying Saussure's theory of signs to the movie, I Love You, Man, would be a humorous way of examining a dry concept. For example, in the clip that I have included, the character of Peter Klaven is always creating "Klavenisms" or nonsense words in an attempt to impress the receiver. However, these Klavenisms consistently end in confusion and, more often the case for Peter, embarrassment. In this clip, Peter's conclusion of the phone conversation with the spontaneously invented term/phrase (?) "latersonthemenjay" is a good example of what can happen when we step outside of prescribed linguistic boundaries. While the receiver can glean the general meaning of "later" from Peter, the balance of Peter's linguistic creation is confounding, even to its creator, who is left cringing in the end. Humor is derived when we, as receivers, attempt to extract some meaning from "onthemenjay" and are left perplexed. It is interesting though, that we do indeed attempt to assign meaning to Peter's nonsensical "word." As funny as it is, Peter's shame shows us that it is risky and unadvisable to leave the accepted realm of the lexicon and established signs.