Uniformity, transparency of encoding, and bi-uniqueness

within the model of Natural Morphology

Grazia Crocco Galas
(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 factor 1 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 Morphology 2
(Crocco Galas 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 word 3. The

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 Galas 1998a:
19-20).
2
Mayerthalers model of Natural Morphology (Mayerthaler 1981) included three principles of
naturalness/markedness: constructional iconicity, uniformity, and transparency. According to Dresslers
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 Galas
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
Galas 1998: 37).
1

parameters under consideration are uniformity, transparency of encoding, and biuniqueness. 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 biuniqueness 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.

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

3

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. GenTika I was
born), /tik/ (e.g. angalistika I was embraced), /ik/ (e.g. katastrfika 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.
4

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, -bus.
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 Rhr-icht bed of reeds) or

verbal (splen to wash up Spl-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 (Brger citizen Brger-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.

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 biuniqueness is not a mere addition of uniformity and transparency. The scale of biuniqueness, 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.
6

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. aGoG education, instruction is-aGoG

introduction, pno breath is-pno 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, gz-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).
7

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. -bus).
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
8

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 Galas, Grazia. (1998a). The Parameters of Natural Morphology. Padova:
Unipress.
Crocco Galas, 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 nellitaliano 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. Tbingen: Niemeyer.

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

Marchand, Hans. (1969). Categories and Types of Present-Day English WordFormation. Mnchen: Beck.
Mayerthaler, Willi. (1981) Morphologische Natrlichkeit. 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 Galas

Assoc. Professor of Linguistics
Department of Italian Studies
Faculty of Arts
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
54006 Thessaloniki
Greece

E-mail: crocco@itl.auth.gr

10