Zero form. Zero sign? [Нулевая форма. Нулевой знак?]
Anton Zimmerling
August 2024 

There is a tradition of postulating zero categories in syntax on the same principles as zero categories in morphology based of purely semiotic considerations: the absence of a phonetic form arguably encodes some special semantics. This approach works with zero subject pronouns with role-and-reference properties but not with the so called zero BE-form in Russian. The latter is recognized in most descriptive versions of Russian grammar starting from Peshkovskij (1928). Meanwhile, Russian zero BE-form lacks unique semantics compared to overt present tense forms of BE it competes with. I argue that despite the so called zero BE-form can be recognised as part of the present tense BE-paradigm in Russian, it is not a sign in Saussurean terms. Moreover, the zero BE-form in Russian is not specified as a copula versus a content verb, so that Modern Russian is strictly speaking not a language with the zero copula, contrary to the standard assumptions.

Format:	[ pdf ]
Reference:	lingbuzz/008338 (please use that when you cite this article)
Published in:	ВАПросы языкознания. Мегасборник наностатей. Сб. ст. к юбилею В.А.Плунгяна /А.А.Кибрик, Кс.П.Семенова, Д.В.Сичинава, С.Г.Татевосов, А.Ю.Урманчиева. Moscow, 2020, 49 - 54.
keywords:	zero forms, signifier, signified, copula, content verb, russian, syntax, phonology, semantics, morphology
Downloaded:	291 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]