The nothing that is, the zero that isn't

The need for zero in linguistic description is widely agreed upon, and few linguists would want to eliminate the concept entirely: grammatical descriptions would become too complicated and run the risk of losing important generalisations. Nevertheless, one needs to exercise caution in postulating zeros, in presuming that some element of linguistic form is actually present when there is no manifest substance. This article has three main aims. One is to examine the notion of zero in linguistics, and discuss circumstances under which it is reasonable to postulate its presence in the face of nothing in the expression‐substance. A second is to argue that in certain circumstances it is useful to identify not zeros of grammatical form, but rather nothings—thus the nothing that is! Third, the need for a reappraisal of the notion of zero in linguistics is suggested: this mathematical metaphor is misleading, and should be replaced by a less dangerous one.