English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article starts from a typology of sign models and sign functions in order to assess Saussure's classification of linguistics as a branch of semiology. Saussure's definition of the linguistic sign raises the issue of a possible semiotic approach of the morpheme (unit of expression and content). In Saussure, and even more so in American structural linguistics, the approach of morphology is characterized by low “semiotic investment”; rarely, if at all, is the notion of “linguistic sign” made operational within their conception of morphological analysis, in spite of interesting opportunities for its use. In poststructuralist work (natural morphology; linguistic functionalism), the perspectives for a semiotic approach of morphology are promising. The final part of the paper formulates some requirements for a rigid approach of the morpheme as a linguistic sign.

Linguistics through its proper mirror-glass: Saussure, signs, segments