1

Uniformity, transparency of encoding, and bi-uniqueness within the model of Natural Morphology

Grazia Crocco Galèas (‘Aristotle’ University of Thessaloniki)

0. Introduction

Morphological techniques, operations, and rules are selected by natural languages

according to a range of parameters of morphological naturalness/markedness. Since the

range of options within a single parameter goes from a maximum to a minimum of

naturalness, the resulting gradient is a scale with a most natural threshold and a least

natural pole. Each parameter then can be viewed as one scalarised factor1 of the

morphological component.

The aim of the present paper is to point out how intrinsic semiotic ambiguity of

natural-historical languages can be adequately defined within the morphological

component. I will present three closely related parameters of universal morphological

naturalness from the eleven that I have proposed for the theory of Natural Morphology2

(Crocco Galèas 1998a, b) which form a peculiar set.

1. Relational invariance

Some parameters of morphological naturalness are specifically based on the relation

signans - signatum rather than on the link tying base and complex word3. The

1 A factor is, by definition, a morphological universal, whether deduced from a function or a semiotic principle or an operation. Moreover a factor is not only a universal but, at the same time, is also an essential point in the description and explanation of morphology. Any factor of morphological analysis is rooted in the morphological component and this, in turn, due to the functionalist approach of Natural Morphology, is shaped in accordance with the system of features that characterise human beings. Hence a scalarised factor constitutes both an object of reality and a tool of interpretation (Crocco Galèas 1998a: 19-20). 2 Mayerthaler’s model of Natural Morphology (Mayerthaler 1981) included three principles of naturalness/markedness: constructional iconicity, uniformity, and transparency. According to Dressler’s model (Dressler 1985), the principles of uniformity and transparency are both subsumed under the parameter of bi-uniqueness. In my elaboration of the parameters of Natural Morphology (Crocco Galèas 1998a), uniformity, transparency of encoding, and bi-uniqueness are three distinct parameters of morphological universal naturalness/markedness, which, in their turn, are inferred from the semiotic principle of bi-uniqueness. 3 For instance, the parameter of morphotactic transparency distinguishes the various degrees of recognisability of the morphological base within the related complex signans (cf. Dressler 1987, Crocco Galèas 1998: 37).

2

parameters under consideration are uniformity, transparency of encoding, and bi-

uniqueness. Their relevance and their similarity of perspective are quite remarkable

within the framework of Natural Morphology, as they directly regard the connection

between signans and signatum. This connection can be viewed either from the

perspective of signans (= transparency of encoding) or signatum (= uniformity) or

finally from both simultaneously (= bi-uniqueness). Thus, on the basis of these

parameters it is possible to evaluate the degree of relational invariance between the two

complementary faces of a complex sign. More specifically, the principle of bi-

uniqueness of expression and meaning is the common preassumption of all three

parameters. Bi-uniqueness (or relational invariance) is the underlying semiotic concept

variously envisaged by each of the parameters mentioned above. For all these

parameters, I propose the common denomination of ‘parameters of relational

invariance’.

2. The parameter of uniformity

The parameter of uniformity regards the structure of sign from the point of view of

signatum. If for a given signatum there is one and only one signans, then the semiotic

relation of signans - signatum is uniform. A uniform sign is a sign whose signatum is

expressed by a single signans. Uniformity, therefore, can be described as the uniqueness

of directionality from signatum to signans.

In English, for instance, the signatum ‘progressive aspect’ is encoded only by the

gerund suffix -ing, e.g. I watch TV vs. I am watching TV. This is, therefore, a case of

uniform encoding from signatum to signans. On the other hand, in English the

superlative degree of adjectives is not only expressed by the suffix -est (e.g. poor →

poor-est), but also by suppletive forms (e.g. bad → worst) and analytical encoding (e.g.

beautiful → most beautiful). Thus, the signatum ‘superlative’ is not realised in a

uniform manner.

Allomorphy and/or morphological synonymy within morphological (inflectional or

derivational) paradigms are typical manifestations of lack of uniformity. For instance,

the alternation of diphthong and simple tonic vowel in the root of a number of Spanish

verbs is a case of morphonological rule triggering morphonological allomorphy, e.g.

3

recuerd-o ‘I remember’

recuerd-as ‘you remember’

recuerd-a ‘he/she/it remembers’

record-amos ‘we remember’

record-ais ‘you remember’

recuerd-an ‘they remember

The signatum ‘remember’ is not encoded uniformly since the lexical morpheme is

expressed alternatively by two allomorphs: recuerd-/record-.

Morphological synonymy is also an obstacle to uniformity. Whenever grammatical

content is expressed by more than one form within the different paradigmatical types of

at least one inflectional subsystem of an inflecting language, we can say that there is

morphological synonymy. For instance, the grammatical meaning ‘Genitive Singular’ in

Latin is realised by five different suffixes, each of them identifying a different

declensional class, e.g.

I. -ae, puell-ae ‘girl’

II. -i, lup-i ‘wolf’

III. -is, reg-is ‘king’

IV. -us, curr-us ‘cart’

V. -ei, di-ei ‘day’

Therefore, ‘Genitive Singular’ is not an example of uniform encoding.

3. The scale of uniformity

The scale of uniformity comprises three degrees. The first threshold of the scale

corresponds to uniformity. The second degree is represented by semi-uniformity. The

third and last degree is that of the absence of uniformity. The least natural degree, i.e.

non-uniformity, differentiates two subtypes: derivational synonymy and inflectional

allomorphy.

I. Uniformity: Imperfective Indicative in Italian is regularly expressed in all three

conjugations by a monophonemic suffix of labiodental fricative, -v-:

1st conj. cantare ‘to sing’ - cant-a-v-a ‘he sang’

2nd conj. gemere ‘to moan’ - gem-e-v-a ‘he moaned’

4

3rd conj. dormire ‘to sleep’ - dorm-i-v-a ‘he slept’

The signatum ‘Impf. Indic.’ has uniform encoding.

II. Semi-uniformity: in English, the semantic matrix ‘full of _’ is always realised by

the denominal suffix -ful forming adjectives, e.g. careful, shameful. However, the same

denominal suffix is also used to coin substantives, whose meaning is ‘quantity which

fills or would fill _’, e.g. bottleful, mouthful (Marchand 1969: 291-293). Therefore,

uniformity is only partial, since the suffix -ful is not limited to the expression of one

semantic matrix.

III. Non-uniformity: a signatum is represented by more than one signans.

a) Derivational synonymy: to form denominal and de-adjectival verbs with the

meaning ‘make_’ English uses at least four suffixes: -ify (e.g. codify, purify), -ize (e.g.

actualize, terrorize), -en (e.g. soften, widen), and -ate (e.g. hyphenate, orchestrate).

b) Inflectional allomorphy: in Modern Greek the grammatical meaning ‘Perfective

Past Passive’ is encoded by three allomorphic variants: /Tik/ (e.g. GeníTika ‘I was

born’), /tik/ (e.g. angaliástika ‘I was embraced’), /ik/ (e.g. katastráfika ‘I was ruined’).

4. The parameter of transparency of encoding

The parameter of transparency of encoding is the reverse of the parameter of

uniformity. Transparency of encoding implies that the semiotic perspective be the

signans of a sign. There is transparent encoding if a given signans represents one and

only one signatum. Otherwise, opaque encoding entails more than one signatum for one

signans.

For instance, the derivational de-adjectival and denominal suffix -aggine in Italian

consists of a transparent signans with respect to relational invariance. Indeed, there is

only one signatum of -aggine, which contributes to the formation of negative and/or

pejorative abstract denominal/de-adjectival nouns, e.g. balordo ‘foolish’ → balord-

aggine ‘foolishness’, sfacciato ‘impudent’ → sfacciat-aggine ‘impudence’ (Dardano

1978: 63). On the contrary, the English suffix -er is not a transparent signans as far as

semiotic invariance is concerned. It represents at least three different signata: 1) an

agent, e.g. driv-er, 2) an instrument, e.g. hoot-er, 3) the comparative degree for

adjectives, e.g. tall-er.

5

Lack of transparent encoding is often equivalent to morphological homonymy.

Inflectional systems of inflecting languages show several examples of morphological

homonymy. In Latin, for instance, the Dative and Ablative cases of the Plural of the third

noun declension are encoded by the same suffix, -ìbus.

Morphological homonymy is the result of diachronic syncretism and also a criterion

guiding the paradigmatic economy of inflectional systems. Therefore, morphological

homonymy can be defined as opacity of encoding within inflectional or derivational

morphology.

5. The scale of transparency of encoding

The scale of transparent encoding identifies three degrees, which are the reverse of the

degrees of uniformity The first threshold of the scale is total transparency, i.e. a given

signans expresses one signatum. The second degree corresponds to all phenomena of

semi-transparency. Semi-transparency occurs whenever a signans encodes one and only

one signatum, which in turn is encoded by one or other signantia. The ultimate degree is

given by opacity of encoding, i.e. one signans manifests different signata.

I. Transparency: in Italian, the inflectional suffix -ss- ([s:]) for the “Imperfect

Subjunctive” of all three conjugations (e.g. lavor-a-ss-i, tem-e-ss-i, copr-i-ss-i) is a good

example of transparent codification, i.e. one signans represents one and only one

signatum.

II. Semi-transparency: in German the derivational suffix -icht is used to form Neuter

collective nouns that can be denominal (Rohr ‘reed’ → Röhr-icht ‘bed of reeds’) or

verbal (spülen ‘to wash up’ → Spül-icht ‘dish-water’). However, the derivational

semantic meaning of ‘collectiveness’ is also conveyed by the suffixes -heit (Mensch

‘person, human being’ → Mensch-heit ‘humanity’), -schaft (Kollege ‘colleague’ →

Kollegen-schaft ‘people from the office’), -tum (Bürger ‘citizen’ → Bürger-tum

‘citizens’), -werk (Laub ‘leaves’ → Laub-werk ‘leafage’), -wesen (Schule ‘school’ →

Shul-wesen ‘school organization’) (Fleischer – Barz 1995). Therefore, -icht is not a case

of total transparency. Its signans corresponds to a signatum, which can also be

represented by other signantia.

6

III. Opacity: in Italian, the suffix -ino has several meanings. It denotes a diminutive,

whether noun or adjective (professore ‘professor’ → professor-ino ‘little or young

professor’), an agent (imbiancare ‘to whitewash’ → imbianch-ino ‘whitewasher’), a

relational adjective (capra ‘goat’ → capr-ino ‘caprine’), an ethnical noun (Agordo →

Agord-ino), and an occupational noun (posta ‘post’ → post-ino ‘post-man’). It. -ino is a

typical example of opacity of encoding, i.e. one signans conveys several meanings.

6. The parameter of bi-uniqueness

Bi-uniqueness is the third parameter of relational invariance between signans and

signatum. In the case of bi-uniqueness the viewpoint from which the relation is regarded

is double or complementary. In fact, the semiotic relation of invariance is

simultaneously evaluated from both signans and signatum. This implies that a complex

sign is biunique if and only if each part of its signans expresses always and only its

corresponding signatum.

In my model of Natural Morphology the parameter of bi-uniqueness differs both

from the parameter of uniformity and that of morphosemantic transparency. In fact, the

parameter of uniformity takes relational invariance from the dimension of signatum into

consideration. It measures the degree of uniformity of encoding starting from signatum

and directed to signans On the other hand, the parameter of morphosemantic

transparency scalarises the quantity of compositionality and motivation of each

component of the signatum with respect to the global meaning of a complex word.

Finally, the parameter of bi-uniqueness focuses on the degree of isomorphism between

expression and content of a complex word.

According to the definitions of the parameters that I propose, uniformity and

transparency of encoding represent two opposite and complementary views of semiotic

relational invariance. Therefore, the parameter of bi-uniqueness can be regarded as that

subsequent dimension of the relation signans - signatum summing up both uniformity

and transparency. However, as will be clear in the next section, the parameter of bi-

uniqueness is not a mere addition of uniformity and transparency. The scale of bi-

uniqueness, on the one hand, combines the two other scales; on the other hand, it

exhibits a further aspect of unnaturalness, which is pointed out neither by the scale of

uniformity nor by that of transparency of encoding.

7

7. The scale of bi-uniqueness

The scale of bi-uniqueness distinguishes three degrees: bi-uniqueness, uniqueness,

and ambiguity (Dressler 1987, Kilani-Schoch 1988: 121-125). All instances of perfect

bi-uniqueness are assigned to the first degree. Biunique signs are easy to process in

production as well as in perception. Bi-uniqueness of semiotic relation excludes any

instance of morphological synonymy, homonymy, or polysemy. Instead, morphological

synonymy and polysemy are typical manifestations of the second degree of the scale.

This degree coincides with the third degrees of the scales of uniformity and

transparency respectively. The ultimate degree is the opposite of the first threshold, i.e.

ambiguity in the semiotic relation of signans and signatum.

I. Bi-uniqueness: in Modern Greek the prefix is- conveys just one semantic matrix, i.e.

‘movement toward or in a place’; vice versa, this same semantic matrix is only rendered

derivationally by the prefix is-, e.g. aGoGí ‘education, instruction’ → is-aGoGí

‘introduction’, pnoí ‘breath’ → is-pnoí ‘inhalation’ (Sotiropoulos 1972: 57).

II. Uniqueness: it is instantiated by four types.

a) Derivational synonymy = more than one signans represents the same derivational

signatum or, in other terms, a given signatum is expressed derivationally by more than

one signans, e.g. the signatum ‘nomen actionis’ is realized in English by more than one

suffix, for instance, coin-age, permitt-ance, moraliz-ation (cf. also the example in § 3.

degree IIIa or Non-uniformity).

b) Inflectional allomorphy = more than one signans represents one inflectional

signatum or, in other terms, a given signatum is expressed inflectionally by more than

one signans. For instance, the signatum ‘Plural’ is realized in Turkish by two

phonological allomorphs, -lar/-ler, e.g. yol-lar ‘streets’, göz-ler ‘eyes’ (cf. also the

example in § 3. degree IIIb or Non-uniformity).

c) Derivational homonymy or polysemy = one signans expresses more than one

derivational signatum or, in other terms, more than one signatum is represented

derivationally by one signans. For instance, the Eng. suffix -dom has various meanings,

e.g. 1) ‘territory, domain’, earl-dom, 2) ‘collectivity of _’, prince-dom, 3) ‘status,

condition’, star-dom, 4) ‘group united by a common interest’, stage-dom (Marchand

1969: 262-264). (cf. example in § 5 degree III or Opacity).

8

d) Inflectional homonymy or polysemy = one signans expresses more than one

inflectional signatum or, in other terms, more than one signatum is represented by one

signans. For instance, the ending -a in Italian may denote a feminine singular noun of

the -a class (cas-a ‘house’, zuccher-ier-a ‘sugar bowl’), the Imperative 2nd Sg. of the

1st conjugation (lavare ‘to wash’ → lava ‘wash!’), and the 3rd Pers. Indic. (lava

‘(he/she/it) washes’) (cf. example in § 4: Lat. -ìbus).

III. Ambiguity: there can be various cases of increasing ambiguity. I shall mention only

two general instances.

a) A given signans corresponds to two or more signata. These, in turn, may be

conveyed by other signantia. For instance, the Eng. suffix -en can derive de-adjectival

verbs (e.g. short → to short-en) but it is also the participial suffix of many strong verbs

(e.g. to write → writt-en). However, other rules exist deriving de-adjectival verbs (e.g.

empty → to empty, familiar → to familiar-ize) on the one hand, and past participles (e.g.

to talk → talk-ed), on the other hand.

b) A given signatum is realized by different signantia. Each of these can realize other

signata. For instance, an agent noun in Italian can be expressed by the following

suffixes: -tore (e.g. importare ‘to import’ → importa-tore ‘importer’), -nte (e.g. militare

‘to militate’ → milita-nte ‘militant’), -ino (e.g. imbiancare ‘to whitewash’→ imbianch-

ino ‘whitewasher’), -one (e.g. mangiare ‘to eat’ → mangi-one ‘great eater’). However,

each of these suffixes represent other meanings. For example, all of them can express

instrument nouns, e.g. -tore - amplificare ‘to amplify’ → amplifica-tore ‘amplifier’; -nte

- essiccare ‘to exsiccate’ → essicca-nte ‘exsiccant’; -ino - macinare ‘to grind’ →

macin-ino ‘(coffee-)mill’; -one - spazzare ‘to mop’ → spazzol-one ‘mop’. In particular,

the suffix -ino also derives relational adjectives, ethnical nouns/adjectives, and

diminutives (cf. § 5).

8. Conclusion.

From the perspective of semiotics, natural languages are said to be synonymic and

ambiguous codes. This means that, on the one hand, languages allow a multiplicity of

expressions (or signata) to map onto the same meaning, and, on the other hand, a

number of their elements of expressions relate to meanings (or signata), which cannot

9

be univocally identified. These two general semiotic principles characterise verbal

codes as vague codes (De Mauro 1982: 98 ff.; 103 ff.). Vagueness lies in the possibility

of the language user to apply non-biunique correspondence between elements of

expression and elements of meaning. Within the morphological component, the

semiotic vagueness of natural languages can be envisaged through three parameters of

universal naturalness /markedness, i.e. the parameters of relational invariance. These

parameters allow the analysis of linguistic data and the prediction and explanation of

part of the morphological behaviour on the basis of three distinct factors – uniformity,

transparency of encoding, and bi-uniqueness. The scalar definition of these factors

represents a convenient means of delimitation of the concept of vagueness.

9. Bibliography.

Crocco Galèas, Grazia. (1998a). The Parameters of Natural Morphology. Padova:

Unipress.

Crocco Galèas, Grazia. (1998b). “Scalar Categorization”. Web Journal of Modern

Language Linguistics 3 (University of Newcastle upon the Tyne).

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk

De Mauro, Tullio. (1982). Minisemantica delle lingue verbali e non verbali. Roma-Bari:

Laterza.

Dardano, Maurizio. (1978). La formazione delle parole nell’ italiano di oggi. Roma:

Bulzoni.

Dressler, Wolfgang. (1985). Morphonology: The Dynamics of Derivation. Ann Arbor:

Karoma.

Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1987). “Word-formation as part of Natural Morphology” . In:

Dressler et al. (1987). 99-126.

Dressler, W. – Mayerthaler, W. – Panagl, O. – Wurzel, W. (1987). Leitmotifs in Natural

Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Fleischer, Wolfgang – Barz, Irmhild. (1995). Wortbildung der deutschen

Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. (1988). Introduction à la morphologie naturelle. Berne:

Lang.

10

Marchand, Hans. (1969). Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-

Formation. München: Beck.

Mayerthaler, Willi. (1981) Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Engl.

Transl. Morphological Naturalness (1986). Ann Arbor: Karoma.

Sotiropoulos, Dimitri. (1972). Noun Morphology of Modern Demotic Greek. The

Hague-Paris: Mouton.

Grazia Crocco Galèas

Assoc. Professor of Linguistics

Department of Italian Studies

Faculty of Arts

“Aristotle” University of Thessaloniki

54006 Thessaloniki

Greece

E-mail: crocco@itl.auth.gr