Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 44:1 (2020) ► pp.1–26

Zero morphemes in paradigms

| Shanghai Jiaotong University
| Zhejiang University of Science and Technology
This paper sheds a new light on the notion of zero morphemes in inflectional paradigms: on their formal definition (§ 1), on the way of counting them (§ 2–3) and on the way of conceptualizing them at a deeper, mathematical level (§ 4). We define (zero) morphemes in the language of cartesian set products and propose a method of counting them that applies the lexical relations of homophony, polysemy, allomorphy and synonymy to inflectional paradigms (§ 2). In this line, two homophonic or synonymous morphemes are different morphemes, while two polysemous and allomorphic morphemes count as one morpheme (§ 3). In analogy to the number zero in mathematics, zero morphemes can be thought of either as minimal elements in a totally ordered set or as neutral element in a set of opposites (§ 4). Implications for language acquisition are discussed in the conclusion (§ 5).
Keywords: zero morpheme, minimal pair, markedness, paradigm
Article outline
  • 1.Zero morphemes and paradigms
  • 2.Polysemy, homophony, allomorphy and synonymy
  • 3.The count of zero morphemes
    • 3.1Paradigms with one zero morpheme
    • 3.2Paradigms with two zero morphemes
    • 3.3Paradigms with multiple zero morphemes
  • 4.The zero morpheme and the zero number
    • 4.1Zero morphemes as minimal values
    • 4.2Zero morphemes as neutral element
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16085.ger
References (48)
References
Anderson, Stephen (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher. 1985. Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Natural morphology: The organization of paradigms and language acquisition. In Charles Ferguson & Thom Huebner (eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, 67–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 235–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1998. Morphology in language acquisition. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 374–389. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, David. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 2012. On the acquisition of inflectional morphology: introduction. Morphology 221. 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, David. 2009. Mamainde Grammar: A Northern Nambikwara language and its cultural context. Utrecht, Netherlands: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Erdal, Marcel. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
García, Erica & Florimon van Putte. 1989. Forms are silver, nothing is gold. Folia Linguistica Historica 8(1–2). 365–384.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, 73–113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1966. Language Universals: with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hamel, Patricia. 1985. A grammar of Loniu (Austronesian, Papua New Guinea languages). Lawrence KS, University of Kansas dissertation.Google Scholar
Hodgkin, Luke. 2005. A History of Mathematics: From Mesopotamia to Modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, Elisabeth. 2011. Markedness. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Ricce (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Volume I1, 79–106. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, William. 1958. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
Joseph, George. 2011. The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (3rd edn). Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kukla, André (2005). Ineffability and Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Robert. 2000. The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István, Robert Vago & Anna Fenyvesi, A. 1998. Hungarian. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kurłyowicz, Jerzy. 1947. La nature des procès dits analogiques. Acta Linguistica 51: 121–138.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Grammar.Google Scholar
Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Lemaréchal, Alain. 1997. Zéro(s). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1990. A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Studies in language companion series 22. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 2002. Towards a formal concept ‘zero linguistic sign’. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang Dressler, Oskar Pfeiffer and Maria Voeikova (eds.), Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, 24–28 February 2000, pp. 241–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Zero sign in morphology. In David Beck (ed.), Aspects of the Theory of Morphology, 469–516. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Press, Ian. 1986. A grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton Raatikainen, Panu. (2018), Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. In Edward Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), [URL] (18 September, 2019). DOI logo
Siewierska, Anna. 2005. Third person zero of verbal person marking. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structure, 414–417. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ([URL]) (18 September, 2019).
. 2010. Person asymmetries in zero expression and grammatical function. In Franck Floricic (ed.), Essais de typologie et de linguistique générale: Mélanges offerts à Denis Creissels, 471–485. Lyon: ENS Éditions.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
So-Hartmann, Helga. 2009. A Descriptive Grammar of Daai Chin. STEDT Monographs 7. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Staal, Frits. 1969. Sanskrit philosophy of language. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics 5: Linguistics in South Asia, 499–531. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stewart, Thomas & Gregory Stump. 2007. Paradigm Function Morphology and the morphology/syntax interface. In Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 383–421. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory & Raphael Finkel. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra, Joseph-Sung Park & Charles Li. 2006. A reference grammar of Wappo. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, David. 1983. A grammar of Huallaga Quechua. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Williams, Paul. 2008. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Ling. 2015. The affix ordering in typological perspective. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gerner, Matthias
2022. Derivational zero affixes worldwide. Lingua 278 ► pp. 103414 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.