Cover not available
Part of
Questioning Theoretical Primitives in Linguistic Inquiry: Papers in honor of Ricardo Otheguy
Edited by Naomi Shin and Daniel Erker
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 76] 2018
► pp. 133–156

Spooky grammatical effects

 | The City College of New York
Linguistic constructs often correspond to nothing concrete: Descriptivists’ zero morpheme, generativists’ trace, variationists’ null instantiation, and Columbia School’s null signal. These represent structural relations with no phonetic substance. Columbia School has posited, moreover, three types of relatively insubstantial semantic structure: The residual member and the including member are semantic value oppositions within a grammatical system, each defined by the system’s other members. In the opposition of substance, in my own work, two signals share a value from one semantic substance, but only one of them bears a meaning from an additional semantic substance. All of these constructs are justified by distributional facts within theoretical paradigms. It is possible, too, to distinguish between all of the above and absence.
Keywords: zero, null, Columbia School, residual member, including member, opposition of substance
Article outline
  • 1.The null in mathematics
  • 2.The null in semiotics
    • 2.1Linguistics
      • 2.1.1Saussure to Bloomfield to Chomsky and beyond
      • 2.1.2William Diver and the Columbia School
        • 2.1.2.1Diver and null
        • 2.1.2.2Diver and homonymy in grammar
        • 2.1.2.3Diver’s residual member
        • 2.1.2.4Diver’s opposition of inclusion
      • 2.1.3The opposition of substance
  • 3.Unsignaled structure in music
  • 4.When there’s no there there
    • 4.1Absence studied from a Columbia School linguistic perspective
    • 4.2Absence studied in variationist linguistics
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Sources of data
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.76.07dav
References (54)
References
Bickel, B., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Zakharko, T., & Iemmolo, G. (2015). Exploring diachronic universals of agreement: Alignment patterns and zero marking across person categories. In J. Fleischer, E. Rieken, & P. Widmer (Eds.), Agreement from a diachronic perspective (pp. 29–51). Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1926). A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2. (Reprinted in Readings in linguistics I, 4th ed., pp. 26–31, by M. Joos , Ed., (1957/1966), Chicago, IL & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1994). The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 235–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, A. M., Orozco, R., & Shin, N. L. (Eds.). (2015). Subject pronoun expression in Spanish: A cross-dialectal perspective. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
(1982). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Contini-Morava, E. (2006). The difference between zero and nothing: Swahili noun class prefixes 5 and 9/10. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp. 211–222). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. (2012). The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change, 24, 343–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. (1992). Italian egli and lui: Grammatical meaning and inference (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University). (UMI No. 9313892)Google Scholar
(1995). Italian pronouns and the virtue of relative meaninglessness. In E. Contini-Morava & B. S. Goldberg (Eds.), Meaning as explanation: Advances in linguistic sign theory (pp. 423–440). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). A surpassingly simple analysis. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message (pp. 113–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). The linguistics of William Diver and the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure. In G. Hassler, & G. Volkmann (Eds.), History of linguistics in texts and concepts, vol. 1 (pp. 307–326). Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
(2016). Substance and structure in Columbia School linguistics. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 48, 59–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). The semantic difference between Italian vi and ci. Lingua, 200, 107–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). The substance and value of Italian si. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diver, W. (1974/2012). Substance and value in linguistic analysis. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 23–45). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(1975/2012). The nature of linguistic meaning. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 47–63). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(1978/2012). Putting the horse before the cart: Linguistic analysis and linguistic theory. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 101–133). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(1986/2012). Latin se. In A. Huffman, & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 279–289). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(1987/2012). The dual. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 87–99). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(1990/2012). The elements of a science of language. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 65–84). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(1992/2012). The Latin demonstratives. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 265–277). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
(1995/2012). Theory. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 445–519). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diver, W., & Davis, J. (1993/2012). The phonology of the extremes: Or, What is a problem? In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 323–341). Leiden: BrillGoogle Scholar
(2012). Latin voice and case. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 195–245). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
García, E. C. (1975). The role of theory in linguistic analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
(1983). Context dependence of language and of linguistic analysis. In F. Klein-Andreu (Ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax (pp. 181–207). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
García, E. C., & Putte, F. V. (1989). Forms are silver, nothing is gold. Folia Linguistica Historica, 21, 365–384.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gorup, R. J. (2006). Se without deixis. In J. Davis, R. J. Gorup, & N. Stern (Eds.), Advances in functional linguistics: Columbia School beyond its origins (pp. 195–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1942). Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Language, 18. (Reprinted in Readings in linguistics I, 4th ed., pp. 109–115, by M. Joos, Ed., (1957/1966), Chicago, IL & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1946). From morpheme to utterance. Language, 22. (Reprinted in Readings in linguistics I, 4th ed., pp. 142–153, by M. Joos, Ed., (1957/1966), Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1942). A system of descriptive phonology. Language 18. (Reprinted in Readings in linguistics I, 4th ed., pp. 97–108, by M. Joos, Ed., (1957/1966), Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huffman, A. (1997). The categories of grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). The linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School. WORD, 52, 29–68.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Introduction: The enduring legacy of William Diver. In A. Huffman & J. Davis (Eds.), Language: Communication and human behavior. The linguistic essays of William Diver (pp. 1–20). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45, 715–762.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1979). Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. Syntax and Semantics, 12, 311–335.Google Scholar
Ono, T., & Thompson, S. A. (1997). Deconstructing 'zero anaphora' in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 481–491.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R. (2002). Saussurean anti-nomenclaturism in grammatical analysis: A comparative theoretical perspective. In W. Reid, R. Otheguy, & N. Stern (Eds.), Signal, meaning, and message (pp. 373–403). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Preface. In A. M. Carvalho, R. Orozco, & N. L. Shin (Eds.), Subject pronoun expression in Spanish: A cross-dialectal perspective (pp. ix–xi). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R., & Zentella, A. C. (2012). Spanish in New York: Language contact, dialectal leveling, and structural continuity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, W. (1991). Verb and noun number in English: A functional explanation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2011). The communicative function of English verb number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 1087–1146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russi, C. (2008). Italian clitics: An empirical study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1878). Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européenes. Paris. Published in Recueil des publications scientifiques de F. de Saussure, Geneva (1922). Cited in Diver, W. (1974/2012).Google Scholar
(1916/1972). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. A. (2006). Null objects across South America. In T. L. Face, & C. A. Klee (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 8th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 23–36). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Tippets, I. (2011). Differential object marking: Quantitative evidence for underlying hierarchical constraints across Spanish dialects. In L. A. Ortiz-López (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 13th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 107–117). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A. (2009). The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85 )2), 321–354.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources of data
Devoto, G. (1951). Gli antichi italici. 2nd edition. Firenze: Vallecchi.Google Scholar
Calvino, I. (1951). Il visconte dimezzato. New York: Appleton, 1968.Google Scholar
Rigoni Stern, M. (1962). Il sergente nella neve: Ricordi della ritirata di Russia. Torino: Einaudi, 1964.Google Scholar
Silone, I. (1937). Pane e vino. Lugano: Capolago.Google Scholar