Zero morphology

Zero morphology

Greville G. Corbett Surrey Morphology Group

University of Surrey

Lecture at the Linguistisches Kolloquium “The concept of zero in modern linguistics”. University of Bremen, 19.3.2014

[References updated April 2015]

The support of the ERC, the AHRC and the ESRC is gratefully acknowledged

1

Introduction

1.  Different types of absence

2.  Strategy for research

3.  Evidence and criteria

4.  The identity function

5.  The place where zero goes

6.  The units which can be zero

7.  Moving the doorstep

8.  Conclusions 2

1. Different types of absence

3

Linguistics on the doorstep

4

Linguistics on the doorstep

5

Different types of absence

English singular plural

dog dog-s Arbore (Cushitic, Hayward 1984: 159‑183) pattern of some but not all nouns:

general plural kér ‘dog(s)’ ker-ó ‘dogs’ garlá ‘needle(s)’ garlá-n ‘needles’

6

Some try to reflect “absence” with a special type of feature (‘unary’ or ‘privative’), see Corbett (2012: 16-17)

Interest in different fields

•  “Nothing, in its various guises, has been a subject of enduring fascination for millennia.”

(Barrow 2001: xi)

•  Zero in mathematics

•  Possibility of a vacuum

7

Bringing out the fun side of linguists

‘Much ado about nothing: features and zeroes in Germanic noun phrases’ Börjars & Donohue 2000

‘The difference between zero and nothing: Swahili noun class prefixes 5 and 9/10’ Contini-Morava 2006 ‘The nothing that is, the zero that isn’t’ McGregor 2003

‘When Zero isn't there’ Mithun 1986

‘Re-evaluating zero: When nothing makes sense’ Segel 2008

‘Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds’ Sigurðsson 2004

8

2. Strategy for research

•  ‘Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.’ (Summa logicae, ca. 1323)

•  Inflectional morphology as best place to look for zero

9 William of Ockham

3. Evidence and criteria

Structuralism

– Bloch assumes for instance that every English past tense verb consists of base and suffix (1947: 402), hence sang: /sæŋ-0/ (p. 405)

–  fine paper by Haas (1957), pointing out the excesses

10

We have been told that, in a sentence like They went to church, the ‘past’ meaning of went is vested in a zero-ending, the presence of which must then be taken to contrast with its absence from go (‘present’) in They go to church. This is bound to raise suspicion. It seems perverse to regard the very obvious phonemic difference between went and go as irrelevant to the semantic difference between the two expressions, and to suppose instead that the presence of some elusive zero suffix in went, as against the still more elusive absence of such from go, could serve to make the distinction. The very notion of ‘element’ seems to evaporate here.1

It is the aim of Linguistic Analysis to correlate semantic differences with phonological: to locate differences between the meanings of whole utterances in particular differences between their phonological forms.2 The semantic difference between They went to church and They go to church would be so located, most plausibly, in the obvious phonological difference between went and go, the two being picked out as different elements (‘morphs representing different morphemes’) in the ordinary and typical sense of the term ‘element’. On the other hand, with the same semantic difference pinned to a supposed contrast between ‘zero present’ and ‘zero absent’, the obvious phonemic difference between went and go stands deprived of any semantic significance it might have had: the two forms are made synonymous – mere alternants of the same morpheme; two obvious carriers of a semantic distinction are put out of action, deprived of their distinctive value, ousted by the introduction of two ghosts – presence of zero and absence of zero. (Haas 1957: 34-35)

1 Such is the procedure proposed by B. Bloch, English Verb Inflection (Language, 1947, §6.1). It has gained wide currency. 2 Saying this does not commit us to any particular theory of meaning. The aim will not be altered, whatever theory we accept. Only our methods of pursuing it will vary with our choice. There are linguistics who avoid the term ‘meaning’, but none fail to provide something that answers to the evident facts to which the term ‘meaning’ refers.

The Overt Analogue Criterion (Generalized)

Zero, or the absence of form, is a member of a set of (meaningful) linguistic elements (only) if a.  there are other elements in the set; b.  at least one of the other elements is not a zero

element; and c.  zero is related to each of the other elements in

the set in the same way that each of the other elements is related to each of the other elements in the set.

12

Sanders (1988: 164-165)

Inflectional morphology offers two dimensions

•  comparison within the lexeme (intra-paradigmatic comparison)

•  comparison across lexemes, cell by cell

13

Russian inflectional classes

14

‘factory’ ‘country’ ‘bone’ ‘deed’ NOM SG zavod stran-a kost´ del-o ACC SG zavod stran-u kost´ del-o GEN SG zavod-a stran-i kost-i del-a DAT SG zavod-u stran-e kost-i del-u LOC SG zavod-e stran-e kost-i del-e INS SG zavod-om stran-oj kost-ju del-om NOM PL zavod-y stran-y kost-i del-a ACC PL zavod-y stran-y kost-i del-a GEN PL zavod-ov stran kost-ej del DAT PL zavod-am stran-am kostj-am del-am LOC PL zavod-ax stran-ax kostj-ax del-ax INS PL zavod-amí stran-amí kostj-amí del-amí

? ?

? ?

? ?

(Compare Saussure 1971/1916: 123-124 on Czech)

Uninflectability: one dimension only

15

‘factory’ ‘country’ ‘bone’ ‘deed’ ‘coat’ NOM SG zavod stran-a kost´ del-o pal´to ACC SG zavod stran-u kost´ del-o pal´to GEN SG zavod-a stran-i kost-i del-a pal´to DAT SG zavod-u stran-e kost-i del-u pal´to LOC SG zavod-e stran-e kost-i del-e pal´to INS SG zavod-om stran-oj kost-ju del-om pal´to NOM PL zavod-y stran-y kost-i del-a pal´to ACC PL zavod-y stran-y kost-i del-a pal´to GEN PL zavod-ov stran kost-ej del pal´to DAT PL zavod-am stran-am kostj-am del-am pal´to LOC PL zavod-ax stran-ax kostj-ax del-ax pal´to INS PL zavod-amí stran-amí kostj-amí del-amí pal´to

Partial uninflectability: (a few) Polish nouns

16

SINGULAR PLURAL

NOM muzeum muzea

ACC muzeum muzea

GEN muzeum muzeów

DAT muzeum muzeom

LOC muzeum muzeach

INS muzeum muzeami

Laskowski (1990)

4. The identity function

No need for zero (following William of Ockam) For instance, in Network Morphology:

<hard mor gen pl> == "<stem pl>". (Corbett & Fraser 1993: 136)

This will be generally the case in inferential realizational theories of morphology.

17

18

Stump’s typology of morphological theories (2001)

lexical inferential

incremental Lieber (1992) Steele (1995)

realizational Distributed Morphology

W&P: PFM, Network Morphology

5. The place where zero goes

19

Ccaa

Korjakov (2006 : map 10)

Archi

Caspian Sea

The Archi case system (excluding spatial case values): baˤkʼ ‘ram’

VALUE

FORMATION EXAMPLE

SG PL SHARED CASE

ENDINGS

SG PL

ABSOLUTIVE SG.DIR PL.DIR baˤk’ baˤk’ur ERGATIVE SG.OBL PL.OBL beˤk’iri baˤk’určaj GENITIVE SG.OBL

stem + shared

case endings

PL.OBL stem

+ shared case

endings

-n beˤk’irin baˤk’určen DATIVE -s, -sː beˤk’iris baˤk’určes COMITATIVE -ɬːu beˤk’iriɬːu baˤk’určeɬːu SIMILATIVE -qˤdi beˤk’iriqˤdi baˤk’určeqˤdi CAUSAL -šːi beˤk’irišːi baˤk’určešːi COMPARATIVE -χur beˤk’iriχur baˤk’určeχur

PARTITIVE -qˤiš beˤk’iriqˤiš baˤk’určeqˤiš SUBSTITUTIVE -kɬ’ǝna beˤk’irikɬ’ena baˤk’určekɬ’ena

21 Chumakina, Brown, Quilliam & Corbett (2007), and sources there.

The formation of local case forms in Archi

localization formation

value meaning SG PL localization affixes

IN inside (hollow object)

SG.OBL + localisation

affixes

PL.OBL+ localisation

affixes

-a/-aj

INTER inside (a mass) -qˤ(a)

SUPER on -tːi/-t

SUB under -kɬ’(a)

CONT in contact with -ra

22

Formation of spatial (local plus orientation) case forms in Archi

orientation formation

values meaning base directional case endings

ESSIVE at

form of localization

Ø

ELATIVE away -š LATIVE to -k ALLATIVE towards -ši TERMINATIVE to (and not further) -kena TRANSLATIVE through -χutː

23

Local case forms in Archi

(1) šahru-l-a-k (2) t’eˤ-li-tːi-k

town-SG.OBL-IN-LAT flower-SG.OBL-SUPER-LAT

‘to town’ ‘onto the flower’

(3) liq’ˤi-li-ra-š (4) dunil-li-tːi-χut

eagle-SG.OBL-CONT-ELAT sky-SG.OBL-SUPER-TRANS

‘from the eagle’ ‘in (through) the sky’

24

The Daghestanian essive (zero) illustrated from Archi

25

(5) šahru-l-a OR (6) šahru-l-a-Ø town-SG.OBL-IN town-SG.OBL-IN-ESSIVE ‘in town’ ‘in town’




26

ELATIVE away


-š LATIVE to -k ALLATIVE towards -ši TERMINATIVE to (and not further) -kena TRANSLATIVE through -χutː

ESSIVE at Ø

26




27

ELATIVE away


-š LATIVE to -k ALLATIVE towards -ši TERMINATIVE to (and not further) -kena TRANSLATIVE through -χutː

27

The Archi verb

Simple dynamic verb aχas ‘lie down’: aspectual stems and the imperative NUMBER GENDER PERFECTIVE IMPERFECTIVE FINALIS IMPERATIVE SG

I a‹w›χu w-a‹r›χa-r a‹w›χa-s w-aχa II a‹r›χu d-a‹r›χa-r a‹r›χa-s d-aχa III a‹b›χu b-a‹r›χa-r a‹b›χa-s b-aχa IV aχu a‹r›χa-r aχa-s aχa

PL

I a‹b›χu b-a‹r›χa-r a‹b›χa-s b-aχa II III aχu a‹r›χa-r aχa-s aχa IV

28 Source: Chumakina & Corbett (2015: 103)

Syncretism: gender and number

29

GENDER NUMBER

(and assignment) SINGULAR PLURAL

I (male human) w-/‹w›

b-/‹b›

II (female human) d-/‹r›

III (some animates, all insects, some inanimates) b-/‹b›

Ø-/‹Ø› IV (some animates, some

inanimate, abstracts) Ø-/‹Ø›

The second dimension: overt marker in (some) adverbs: here dit:aw ‘early, soon’

GENDER NUMBER

singular plural

I dit:a-w

II dit:a-r-u

III dit:a-b-u

IV dit:a-t’-u

dit:a-b-u

dit:a-t’-u

30 Same pattern, all markers overt.

Archi: prefixal marking

31

acu ‘milk’: the agreement marker is a prefix in all forms

PERFECTIVE IMPERFECTIVE FINALIS IMPERATIVE

III.SG b-acu b-a‹r›ca-r b-aca-s b-aca IV.SG acu a‹r›ca-r aca-s aca

Source: Chumakina & Corbett (2015: 105)

Archi: mixed marking

32

akɬu ‘put through’: the agreement marker is an infix in the perfective and finalis and a prefix in the imperfective and imperative


III.SG a‹b›kɬu b-a‹r›kɬa-r a‹b›kɬa-s b-akɬa IV.SG akɬu a‹r›kɬa-r akɬa-s akɬa


Archi: infixal marking

33

caχu ‘throw’: the agreement marker is an infix in all forms


III.SG ca‹b›χu ca‹b›χa-r ca‹b›χa-s ca‹b›χa IV.SG caχu ca‹r›χa-r caχa-s caχa


What we learn from Archi

•  Two markers compete for a slot

•  Gender/number agreement “wins”

•  But when the gender/number marker is zero, it really isn’t there, because it allows in the imperfective marker.

•  We might expect also the opposite situation, where zero is there, and blocks its competitor. There have been suggestions for such a situation, but none is clear-cut.

34

6. The units which can be zero

•  we have already seen inflections (though they did not require us to postulate a zero morpheme)

•  to examine below: – zero roots of verbs (taking affixes) – zero subparadigm (fused exponence) – zero preposition

35

Zero verb roots in Papuan languages

•  Regularly cited. Notably Amele (Roberts 1998) •  But alternative analyses (Reesink 2013, Fedden

2010: 462 for Mian, note also Foley 2000: 377-378) •  An open case: Nimboran (Anceaux 1965: 184,

Inkelas 1993: 610-613)

Ø-‐ ‘be’ Ø-‐ ‘hear’ Ø-‐ ‘become’ Ø-‐ ‘kiss’ Ø-‐ ‘bring’ Ø-‐ ‘laugh’ Ø-‐ ‘dream’ Ø-‐ ‘make cat’s cradles’ Ø-‐ ‘extend’ Ø-‐ ‘say’ Ø-‐ ‘go’ Ø-‐ ‘sleep’

36

Zero root in Mian

37

•  But, it’s not nothing, it has a tone

Fedden (2011: 272)

(7) unáng=o om-Øˆ-Ø-e=be woman=SG.F 3SG.F_CL.OBJ-take.PFV-REAL-3SG.M.SBJ=DECL ‘He took a wife.’

Russian: present of byt´ ‘be’ ‘read’ ‘talk’ ‘be’

FUTURE

1SG bud-u čitat´ bud-u govorit´ bud-u

2SG bud-eš´čitat´ bud-eš´govorit´ bud-eš´

3SG bud-et čitat´ bud-et govorit´ bud-et

1PL bud-em čitat´ bud-em govorit´ bud-em

2PL bud-ete čitat´ bud-ete govorit´ bud-ete

3PL bud-ut čitat´ bud-ut govorit´ bud-ut

PRESENT

1SG čitaj-u govorj-u

2SG čita-eš´ govor-iš´

3SG čita-et govor-it

1PL čita-em govor-im

2PL čita-ete govor-ite

3PL čitaj-ut govorj-at

PAST

M.SG čital govoril byl

F.SG čital-a govoril-a byl-a

N.SG čital-o govoril-o byl-o

PL čital-i govoril-i byl-i 38

? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

?

Upper Sorbian preposition

•  Like most Slavonic languages, Sorbian has a locative case value, which occurs with prepositions:

8a. we Budyšinje 8b. we awće 8c. na nitce in Bautzen.LOC in car.SG.LOC on thread.SG.LOC

‘in Bautzen’ ‘in the car’ ‘on the thread’ •  But we also find: 9a. Budyšinje 9b. awće Bautzen.LOC car.SG.LOC ‘in Bautzen’ ‘in the car’ (Stone 1986, 1987, 2009: 63-64) •  Either a null preposition, or a use of the case value with

default meaning, matching that of the “missing” preposition 39

7. Moving the doorstep (the site of zero)

40

•  Torau

•  all material from Bill Palmer (2011) and personal communications

•  and thanks to Erich Round for pointing out the paper

í

Torau indirect possession

41 Palmer (2011 and personal communication)

•  Indirect possession uses preposed particle •  Distinction between indirect classes neutralised

(10) a. a-di siaka POSS-3PL.PSSR[PL.PSSM] taro ‘their taros (to eat or not)’ (Palmer)

b. a-di buku POSS-3PL.PSSR[PL.PSSM] book ‘their books’ (Palmer)

42 Palmer (2011 and personal communication)

•  Suffix attached to particle indexes possessor (dependent) number/person.

•  Additional suffix attached to particle indexes possessum (head) number.

•  Singular is marked, plural is unmarked (!).

(11) a. a-di-na gareni POSS-3PL.PSSR-SG.PSSM garden ‘their garden’ (Palmer)

b. a-di gareni POSS-3PL.PSSR[PL.PSSM] garden ‘their gardens’ (Palmer)

Torau indirect possession: number marking

43

(3SG is irregular so 2nd person shown)

2SG 2PL possessor possessor

SG possessum a-u-na a-mu-na

PL possessum a-u a-mu

Palmer (2011 and personal communication)

Torau indirect possession: number/person indexing

Torau indirect possession: required to show the presence of zero

44 Palmer (2011 and personal communication, from Rausch 1912: 985)

(12) a. tua-gu hand-1SG.PSSR ‘my hand’

b. a-gu tua-gu POSS-1SG.PSSR[PL.PSSM] hand-1SG.PSSR ‘my hands’

8. Conclusions

•  In the simplest cases, where there is nothing, we need do nothing (Grice will take care of it).

•  Where the context, ideally from two dimensions, sets up an expectation of an element and none appears, we need to account for this: –  typically we use the identity function (there is

no need for zero). – and we need to be clear what “nothing”

signifies in each instance.

45

8. Conclusions (continued)

•  When there is competition for a slot, nothing gives place to something.

•  The place where nothing is significant is typically in inflection. Zero stems are often open to other analyses.

•  We should keep looking, but William of Ockam is a good guide.

46

References Anceaux, Johannes C. 1965. The Nimboran language: phonology and morphology

(Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 44). 'S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Barrow, John D. 2001. The book of nothing. London: Vintage. Bloch, Bernard. 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23.399-418. Chumakina, Marina, Dunstan Brown, Harley Quilliam and Greville G. Corbett. 2007.

Slovar´ arčinskogo jazyka (arčinsko-anglo-russkij) [A dictionary of Archi: Achi-Russian-English]. Makhachkala: Delovoj Mir. [Available as a WWW version on the SMG website].

Chumakina, Marina & Greville G. Corbett. 2015. Gender-number marking in Archi: small is complex. In: Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett & Dunstan Brown (eds) Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, 93-116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: CUP. Corbett, Greville G. & Norman Fraser.1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account

of Russian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142. Fedden, Sebastian. 2010. Ditransitives in Mian. In: Andrej Malchukov, Martin

Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds). Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook, 456-485. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

47

Fedden, Sebastian. 2011. A Grammar of Mian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Foley, William A. 2000. The Languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of

Anthropology 29.357-404. Haas, William. 1957. Zero in linguistic description. In: J. R. Firth (ed.) Studies in

linguistic analysis (Special volume of the Philological Society), 33-53. Oxford: Blackwell.

Inkelas, Sharon. 1993. Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11.559–624.

Hayward, Dick. 1984. The Arbore Language: A First Investigation: Including a Vocabulary. (Cushitic Language Studies 2). Hamburg: Buske.

Korjakov, Ju. B. 2006. Atlas kavkazskix jazykov: s priloženiem polnogo reestra jazykov. Moscow: Pilgrim.

Laskowski, Roman. 1990. The structure of the inflectional paradigm. Scando‑Slavica 36.149‑154.

Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Matthews, P. H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palmer, Bill. 2011. Head marking and double indexing in three Bougainville

languages. Paper read at the meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society, ANU, 2 December 2011.

Rausch, P. J. 1912. Die Sprache von Südost-Bougainville, Deutsche Salomoninseln. Anthropos 7.106-134, 585-616, 964-994, 1056-1057. [cited from Palmer 2011.]

49

Reesink, Ger. 2013. Expressing the GIVE event in Papuan languages: a preliminary survey. Linguistic Typology 17.217-266.

Roberts, John R. 1998. GIVE in Amele. In John Newman (ed.) The linguistics of giving, 1-33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Sanders, Gerald 1988, Zero Derivation and the Overt Analogue Criterion. In: Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds), Theoretical Morphology, 155-175. San Diego: Academic Press.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1971. Cours de linguistique générale (publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger). Paris: Payot. [Third edition, first edition 1916.]

Steele, Susan. 1995. Towards a theory of morphological information. Language 71.260-309.

Stone, Gerald. 1986. The prepositionless locative In Sorbian. Ms. Univ. of Oxford. Stone, Gerald 1987 Serbski lokatiw bjez prepozicije. Lětopis Instituta za serbski

ludospyt (Bautzen) Rjad A - rěčespyt, 34.11-18. Stone, Gerald. 2009 The Göda Manuscript 1701: A Source for the History of the

Sorbian Language: With an Introduction and Glossary. Bautzen: Domowina. Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trommer, Jochen. 2012. Ø-exponence. In: Jochen Trommer (ed) The Morphology

and Phonology of Exponence, 326-354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zero morphology

Documents