Three Hypostases of Chinese Zero: Causes, Problems, Solutions

The article analyses two problems connected with the members of the 0 - O - W triad: the practical one and the theoretical one. The former lies in delimiting the spheres of use of the different forms of zero. Due to similarities in the graphic representations of the first two signs of the triad as well as the peculiarities of the use of the second and third signs, occasionally there is confusion in their transcription. The second problem - the theoretical one - is whether it is appropriate to count O as a Chinese character. The problems are solved with consideration of the respective normative regulation (National Standards and Acts) that govern the use of every member of the 0 - O - W triad. The triad members are considered not only structurally, like in prior works, but also using the semiotic and cognitive approaches. Within the framework of the cognitive approach, from the perspective of the prototypes theory, a scalar method, which is based on ten criteria the author developed, is used. In order to solve the two problems, the study considers the historical prerequisites of today's variability in the transcription of the zero. A diachronic perspective has allowed us not only to explain the reasons for the existence of the three signs to denominate a single referent but also to predict the tendencies for further development of the graphic representation of the zero in Chinese. The study also analyses typical mistakes in transcriptions of the 0 -O - W triad. Moreover, the semiotic status of every variety of denoting “zero” has been determined thus answering whether O is a Chinese character or not. As a result of the research, the author has come to the conclusion that O was the first to denote “zero” in China. Later, the Chinese character “W” acquired a similar meaning. By the 20th century the Arabic number “0” came into common use. At the same time none of the 0 - O - W triad members ceased to be used. None of the three, while having the same pronunciation - [lmg], are fully identical. From the point of view of pragmatics, their functions and spheres of use are clearly regulated, and it is not a question of free interchangeability. According to regulatory acts, the major principle of distinguishing between the use of O and W is that W is usedin measures, calculations, and estimations while O is appropriate in numbering, marking, and assignment of numbers. From the point of view of the language theory (the semiotic approach) and as a result of the scalar approach, it has been proved that the major difference is in the alphanumeric nature of the three variations of “zero”: 0 is a mathematical sign (a digit), W is alanguage sign (a word, aChinesecharacter), and O is not a language sign, hence, it may not be counted as a proper Chinese character. In this regard, it is possible to define the latter as a sign transitioning from one kind to the other.

Keywords

Authors

References