Serbo/croatian Collectives

7/27/2019 Serbo/croatian Collectives

1/16

The Semantics of Serbo-Croatian Collectives

Almerindo Ojeda and Tamara Grivic ic

University of California at Davis

1. The Serbo-Croatian Paradigms

A fair number of Serbo-Croatian (SC) nouns have both specific and collective singular

and plural forms. Consider for example the paradigms in (1)(18).1

SpecSg SpecPl CollSg CollPl Gloss

(1) tele telic i telad teladi calf

(2) janje janjci2 janjad janjadi lamb

(3) pile pilic i pilad piladi chicken (4) unuc e unuc ic i unuc ad unuc adi little grandchild

(5) ciganc e ciganc ic i ciganc ad ciganc adi Romany child

(6) june junci junad junadi small bullock

(7) zvijer zvjeri zvjerad zvjeradi beast

(8) z drijebe z drjepci z drebad z drebadi foal

(9) bure bureta burad buradi barrel

(10) dugme dugmeta dugmad dugmadi button

(11) uz e uz eta uz ad uz adi rope

(12) biser biseri biserje biserja pearl

(13) otok otoci otoc je otoc ja island

(14) klas klasovi klasje klasja cob

(15) kamen kameni3 kamenje kamenja stone

(16) snop snopovi snoplje4 snoplja5 bundle

(17) prut prutovi pruc e pruc a twig

(18) cvijet cvjetovi cvijec e cvijec a flower

Intuitively, while specific forms name individuals, collective forms name collections of in-

dividuals, and while singular forms name discrete entities taken one at a time, plural forms

name discrete entities taken two or more at a time. The forms of paradigm (1) maytherefore be interpreted as follows:

1 Perhaps to be added in this list is the paradigm orah, orasi, oras e, oras a walnut.2 This form derives fromjanjac, an infrequent variant ofjanje (Raguz 1997, 55.71).3 Some speakers may also use the long form kamenovi.4 Some speakers may also use the long formsnopovlje.5 Some speakers may also use the long formsnopovlja.


2/16

2

(19) a. tele names individual (and hence discrete) calves taken one at a time; it thus

means individual calf.

b. telic i names individual (and hence discrete) calves taken two or more at a

time; it thus means individual calves.

c. teladnames [discrete collections of individual calves] taken one at a time; it

thus means group of calves.

d. teladi names [discrete collections of individual calves] taken two or more at a

time; it thus means groups of calves.

The goal of this paper is to describe the semantics of these contrasts in a precise way

through mereological model-theoretic semantics (Ojeda 1993).

Evidence for interpretations like the one in (19) comes from the way the nouns in

(1)(18) interact with numerals. For, notice that SC has two series of numerals; they are

the specific numerals (which are used to count individuals), and the collective numerals(which are used count groups of individuals).6 Thus, if one were to count individual kid-

neys, one would use specific numerals likejedan one and dva two (bearing in mind

that here these numerals govern, respectively, the nominative singular and the genitive

plural).

(20) jedan bubreg

one.MASC.SPEC kidney.MASC.NOM.SG

one kidney

(21) dva bubrega

two.MASC.SPEC kidney.MASC.GEN.PL

two kidneys

Yet, if one wanted to count groups (or pairs) of kidneys, one would instead appeal to col-

lective numerals likejedni one and dvoji two (bearing in mind that both govern here the

nominative plural).

(22) jedni bubrezi

one.MASC.COLL kidney.MASC.NOM.PLone pair of kidneys

(23) dvoji bubrezi

two.MASC.COLL kidney.MASC.NOM.PL

two pairs of kidneys

6 See Ojeda (1997) for a closer look at these double series of numerals.


3/16

3

Crucially, while the specific nouns of our paradigms combine only with specific numerals,

(24) jedno tele

one.NEUT.SPEC calf.NEUT.SG

one calf

(25) dva telic a

two.NEUT.SPEC calf.NEUT.PL

two calves

their collective counterparts combine only with collective numerals:

(26) jedna telad

one.FEM.COLL calf.FEM.COLL.SGone group of calves

(27) dvoje teladi

two.FEM.COLL calf.FEM.COLL.PL

two groups of calves

It should be noted that the paradigms (1)(11) have feminine collective forms and neuter

specific forms. This explains why (24) and (25) are neuter while (26) and (27) are fem-

inine. As to the paradigms (12)(18), they all have neuter collective forms and masculine

specific forms. All the collective forms furthermore trigger plural agreement (Javarek and

Sudjic 1963, 140; Baric et al. 1979, 791; Grubis ic 1995, 59, 63; Raguz 1997, 67.143

and 672; Grivic ic 1999, 3).

2. The Morphological Analysis

We shall assume that the forms in (1)(18) involve three morphological processes.

One of them is derivational, and corresponds to the formation of a collective stem out of a

specific one. The other two processes are inflectional, and correspond to singular andplural inflection. The effect of these morphological processes on the base form telcalf

can be diagrammed as follows.


4/16

4

PLURAL (telic i)

(28) STEM (tel)

SINGULAR (tele)

PLURAL (teladi)

STEM (telad)

SINGULAR (telad)

In this diagram, the downward arrow from telto teladrepresents the derivational processthat creates collective stems from specific ones; the forked rightward arrows out ofteland

teladrepresent the two morphological processes responsible for number inflection.

Up to allomorphic variance, the analysis sketched above works for all the paradigms

in (1)(18). All that needs to be borne in mind is that the plural allomorph fordugme and

bure is -eta rather than -ta (otherwise a natural reduction eee in the specific forms

would have to be given up in exchange for a less desirable change eaa in the collective

forms). Evidence that derivation is involved comes from the differences between the base

and the derived forms mentioned above. These are the differences in gender (NEUTERvs.

FEMININE, MASCULINE vs. NEUTER), number (SINGULAR vs. PLURAL), and meaning

(SPECIFIC vs. COLLECTIVE, but see 7 for other, more radical, semantic changes).

3. Ontological Preliminaries to the Semantic Analysis

Let us say that the universe of discoursefor a particular occasion of linguistic use is

the set of entities one may talk about on that occasion. Let us say also that the partitive

relationfor a particular occasion of linguistic use is a binary relation in the universe of

discourse for that occasion. It is the relation which holds of an ordered pair if and only ifthe first member of the pair can be said to be part of the second member of the pair. Thus,

consider an occasion of linguistic use in which one can talk, both individually and

collectively, about the keys of my piano. The partitive relation for such an occasion is a

binary relation that holds between the keys of my piano, taken individually, and the keys

of my piano taken collectively.


5/16

5

Putting the preceding notions together, we will say that any ordered pair consisting of

the universe of discourse for a particular occasion of linguistic use followed by the

partitive relation for that occasion is a modelfor the interpretation of SC nounson a

particular occasion of linguistic use. These models are important because they are the

ontologies against which the nouns in (1)(18) will be interpreted. As such, they must be

rich enough to support the interpretations in question. Notice in this regard that a case

can be made that every model for the interpretation of SC nouns on a particular occasion

of linguistic use satisfies the following properties.

(29) a. The partitive relation of the model is irreflexive (no element of the universe

of discourse of the model can be said to be part of itself).

b. The partitive relation of the model is asymmetric (no two elements of the

universe of discourse of the model can be said to be part of each other).

c. The partitive relation of the model is transitive (if some element of the

universe of discourse of the model can be said to be part of a second, and ifthe second can be said to be part of a third, then the first can also be said to

be part of the third).

d. The universe of discourse of the model is additive in the sense that it

contains, for every one of its nonempty subsets, a partitive least upper

bound or sum (if one can talk about any entities individually, then one can

also talk about them collectively7).

e. The universe of discourse of the model is subtractive in the sense that it

contains, for every two partitively related elements of the universe, a

partitive difference between them (if one can talk about part of an entity,

then one can also talk about the rest.8).

More succinctly, a case can be made that every model for the interpretation of SC nouns

on a particular occasion of linguistic use is a mereology.

Let us consider now a model for the interpretation of SC nouns on an occasion of

linguistic use in which one may talk, either individually or collectively, about one, two,

three, four, or five individuals a, b, c, d, e. This model can be diagrammed as follows.

7 Three ways to do so are through conjunction, definite description, and demonstrative description.8 Besides locutions like the rest, one could also talk about them through expressions like the X which are

not the Y, the X other than the Y, and the non Y X).


6/16

6

(39) a+b+c+d+e

a+b+c+d a+b+c+e a+b+d+e a+c+d+e b+c+d+e

a+b+c a+b+d a+b+e a+c+d a+c+e a+d+e b+c+d b+c+e b+d+e c+d+e

a+b a+c a+d a+e b+c b+d b+e c+d c+e d+e

a b c d e

Fig.1 A Typical Mereology

Let the nodes of this diagram represent the elements of the universe of discourse for the

occasion in question and that the upward paths of the diagram represent the partitive

relation for that occasion (the latter obtains if we let an element x of the universe ofdiscourse bear the partitive relation to an elementy of the universe if and only there is an

upward path from the node which represents x to the node which represents y). As the

reader will be able to verify, the five properties in (29) can be represented in (30). Thus,

there are no upward paths from a node to itself (so the diagram represents the irreflexivity

of the partitive relation); no node can be revisited simply by following upward paths (so

the diagram represents the asymmetry of the partitive relation)and so on.

4. The Semantic Analysis

Let us say that a subset of the universe of discourse of a model is mereological if and

only if the subset is both additive and subtractive (and therefore forms a mereology in its

own right under the partitive relation of the model). We now make the following

proposal.

(31) Roots (Initial Version)

The denotation of any nominal root on any occasion of linguistic use is a

mereological subset of the universe of discourse of the model for that occasion.

Suppose a, b, c, dare all the individual calves contained in the model diagrammed in (30).

If these are the only individuals the root telcalf can be true of, then telwould have to

denote the subset diagrammed in (32), as this is the only mereological subset that contains

no individual entities other than calves.


7/16

7

(32) a+b+c+d

a+b+c a+b+d a+c+d b+c+d

a+b a+c a+d b+c b+d c+d

a b c d

Fig. 2 The denotation of the root telcalf

Next let us say that an element of a mereological subset is an atom thereof if and only

if the subset does not contain any part of that element. We may now propose that the

interpretation of the singular inflection proceeds as indicated in (33).

(33) Singular Inflection

The denotation of the singular inflection on any particular occasion of linguistic

use is a function which assigns, to each mereological subset of the universe of

discourse of the model for that occasion, the set of atoms of that subset.

When applied to the stem whose denotation is diagrammed in (32), the singular inflection

will pick the set of atoms of that denotation. The interpretation of the specific singular

form tele individual calf can be therefore diagrammed as the enclosed portion of (34).

(34) a+b+c+d



a b c d

Fig. 3 The denotation of the specific singulartele individual calf

Given the interpretation oftele in (19a), this is as desired.


8/16

8

Next let us say that an element of a mereological subset is a molecule thereof if and

only if it is the sum or least upper bound for a set of two or more atoms of that subset.

We may now propose that the interpretation of the plural inflection proceeds as indicated

in (35).

(35) Plural Inflection

The denotation of the plural inflection on any occasion of linguistic use is a

function which assigns, to each mereological subset of the universe of discourse

of the model for that occasion, the set of molecules of that subset.

When applied to the stem whose denotation is diagrammed in (32), the plural inflection

will pick the set of molecules of that dentation. The interpretation of the specific plural

form telic i individual calves would therefore be as follows.

(36) a+b+c+d



a b c d

Fig. 4. The denotation of the specific plural telic i individual calves

And given the interpretation oftelic i in (19b), this would also be as desired.

Next we turn to the derivational process that forms a collective stem out of a specific

one. To interpret this process, let us suppose thatA andB are mereological subsets of the

universe of discourse of a model. Let us suppose further that jis a function from A to B.

We will say that jis a homomorphism if and only ifjtelescopes the partitive relation of

the model as it maps A intoB.9 We will also say that a homomorphism j:A B is an

endomorphism if and only ifB is a subset ofA. Finally, we will say that B is anendomorphic image ofA if and only ifjis surjective.

A mereological subset may have many endomorphic images. The mereological subset

diagrammed in (32), for example, has 52. One of them may be diagrammed as the enclosed

portion of (37). This image is formed by lettingA be the mereological subset diagrammed9 More precisely, ifx andy are elements ofA, and ifx is part ofy, then j(x) is either part ofj(y) or else

equal to j(y).


9/16

9

in (32), by setting B = {a+b, c+d, a+b+c+d}, and by letting jbe the function that

assigns every element ofB to itself and maps every other element ofA into the least

inclusive element ofB that has it as part.

(37) a+b+c+d



a b c d

Fig. 5 One of the fifty-two endomorphic images of the mereology in (32).

For, notice that jmaps every element ofA either into itself or else into an element ofA

that has it as part, thus telescoping the partitive relation of the model as it maps A onto

Bwhich is a subset ofA.

But notice that such an image is a potential denotation of the collective stem telad. It

is the denotation of this stem on any occasion of use in which a+dand b+c are two

discrete collections of calves taken one at a time, and (a+d) + (b+c) = a+b+c+dare two

discrete collections of calves taken two at a time.

More generally, every endomorphic image of the mereological subset diagrammed in

(32) would be a able to be the denotation of the collective stem teladon some occasion of

linguistic use.10 And this seems to hold of all collective stems; all collective stems seem to

be nothing more and nothing less than endomorphic images of their specific counterparts.

If this is so, then the derivational process that forms a collective stem out of a specific

one should be interpreted as indicated in (37).

(38) Collective Formation

The denotation of Collective Formation on any occasion of linguistic use is a

function which assigns, to each mereological subset of the universe of discourse

of the model for that occasion, an endomorphic image of that subset.

10 The mereological subset in (32) is a possible denotation of the collective stem telad, as every mereolo-

gical subset is, trivially, an endomorphic image of itself.


10/16

10

What endomorphic images are assigned by the denotation of Collective Formation on a

particular occasion of linguistic use will depend on what that occasion of linguistic use is.

What remains invariant is that Collective Formation assigns endomorphic images.

Notice now that the subset enclosed in (37) is mereological. Notice also that a+dand

b+c are atoms of this subset (although they are not atoms of the mereological subset in

(32)). In fact, they are the only atoms of that subset. If the collective stem teladever

denoted such a set, the inflection of this stem for singularity would select the set formed

by these elements. The denotation of the collective singularteladgroup of calves then,

could be represented as follows.

(39) a+b+c+d



a b c d

Fig. 6 The denotation of the collective singular stem teladgroup of calves

Given the intepretation ofteladin (19c), this seems to be as desired. It should be empha-sized that nothing new needed to be stipulated at this point about singularity. It all

followed from (33) and (38).

And similar points can be made about the collective plurals. Given the interpreta-

tions in (38) and (35), every collective plural will invariably refer to the set of molecules

of an endomorphic image of a mereological subset. Thus, if the collective stem telad

denotes the mereological set represented in (37), then the collective plural teladi groups

of calves would refer to the set diagrammed in (40).


11/16

11

(40) a+b+c+d



a b c d

Fig. 7 The denotation of the collective plural teladi groups of calves

And given the interpretation ofteladi in (19d), this seems to be as desired.

5. The case ofoko eye and uho ear

A few SC nouns have simpler variants of the above paradigms. Consider for example

the paradigms in (41) and (42).

SpecSg SpecPl Coll Gloss

(41) oko oka oc i11 eye

(42) uho uha us i12 ear

To account for the semantics of these contrasts, we will assume that these forms are

generated from base stems by the derivational process of Collective Formation and two

processes of number inflection that apply only to the base stem. This may be

diagrammed as follows for the case ofokeye.

11 A regular phonological process kc / i applies here.12 A regular phonological process hs/ i applies here.


12/16

12

PLURAL (oka)

(43)STEM (ok)

SINGULAR (oko)

STEM (oc i)

Nothing new needs to be stipulated to account for the semantics of these forms. In

particular, nothing new needs to be stipulated to account for the semantics of the

unmarked collective stems, which will be assigned an endomorphic image of the

mereological subset denoted by their specific counterparts. Evidence that the collective

stems are truly unmarked for number comes from the fact that they may combine with all

the members of the collective numeral series. See (44)(45) foroc i and (46)(47) forus i.

(44) jedne oc i

one.FEM.COLL eye.FEM.COLL

one pair of eyes

(45) dvoje oc i

two.FEM.COLL eye.FEM.COLLtwo pairs of eyes

(46) jedne us i

one.FEM.COLL ear.FEM.COLL

one pair of ears

(47) dvoje us i

two.FEM.COLL ear.FEM.COLL

two pairs of ears

And this analysis ofoc i and us i may be extended to the numerically invariant bubrezi

mentioned in (22) and (23).

6. The Case ofdrva wood


13/16

13

But SC nouns can be found that have more complex versions of the paradigms in

(1)(18). Consider for example the paradigm in (48). It contains a mass noun in addition

to the four familiar ones.

SpecSg SpecPl CollSg CollPl Mass Gloss

(48) drvo drveta drvec e drvec a drva tree

As might be expected, drvo means individual tree; drveta can be glossed individual

trees; drvec e translates as discrete collections of individual trees taken one at a time; it

can thus be used to mean group of trees, grove; drvec a means discrete collections of in-

dividual trees taken two or more at a time; it may thus be used as groups of trees,

groves. As to drva, it means trees taken in bulk or tree taken as a mass. As such, it

can be used as wood (see Raguz 1997, 55.76).

Nothing new needs to be said to account for the first four forms of (48). Accountingfor the fifth one will take a bit more of work. Every stem we have seen so far denotes an

atomistic mereological subseta mereological subset every element of which is the least

upper bound of a set of atoms of the subset. But this is not actually requiredby (31),

which allows a root to be interpreted as an atomless mereological subseta mereological

subset no element of which is the least upper bound of a set of atoms of the subset. This

is fortunate, as such subsets turn out to be the ones we need for the interpretation of

mass nouns.

Notice first that an atomless mereological subset is a subset that contains no atoms

whatsoever. For if it did, then the singletons thereof would have the atoms as least upper

bounds. An atomless mereological subset can therefore contain no atom whatsoever.

Now, if atoms are individuals, then mass stems would be stems that do not denote

individuals. This, of course, is exactly what has been said about the semantics of mass

nouns:

To learn [the count noun] apple it is not sufficient to learn how much of what goes on counts as

apple; we must learn how much counts as an apple and how much as another. Such terms possess

built-in modes, however arbitrary, of dividing their reference [] Or consider shoe, pair of

shoes, and footwear: all three range over exactly the same scattered stuff, and differ from oneanother solely in that two of them divide their reference differently and the third not at all (Quine

1960, 91).

All the distinctive properties of mass nouns can be explained by the fact that they are

atomless. Thus, the fact that mass nouns are outside the opposition of number and cannot

be enumerated by cardinal numbers, ordered by ordinal numbers, specified by the indefin-


14/16

14

ite article, or modified in terms of size and shape, all follow from the assumption that

they do not name individuals.13

Let us revise, then, the proposal in (31) as shown in (49).

(49) Roots (Final Version)

a. The denotation of any count root on any occasion of linguistic use is an

atomistic mereological subset of the universe of discourse of the model for

that occasion.

b. The denotation of any mass root on any occasion of linguistic use is an

atomless mereological subset of the universe of discourse of the model for

that occasion.

Equipped with these distinctions, we will now assume that the morphological analysis of

the forms in (48) can be diagrammed in (50).

MASS STEM (drva)

(50) MASS ROOT (drv)

PLURAL (drveta)

COUNT STEM (drv)

SINGULAR (drvo)

PLURAL (drvec a)

COLLECTIVE STEM (drvec)

SINGULAR(drvec e)

Formally, we propose that SC contains a mass root drv-, and that this stem undergoes

two derivational processes.14 One of them is semantically null (or denotes the identity

function over denotations), and yields the feminine mass stem drva. This noun denotes

the same atomless subset that its source drv- did. This is the set which consists of all the

amounts of treeor woodin the universe of discourse. Since drva is feminine, this

derivational process could be called Feminine Formation. The other derivational process is

phonetically null (or denotes the identity function over forms), and yields the count stemdrv-. This derivational process is notsemantically null. It can be interpreted as follows.

(51) Discontinuous Formation

13 See Ojeda (1993).14 Evidence for derivationas opposed to inflectionis provided not only by the semantic difference

between the forms derived by these processes, but also by the gender difference between them; while one of

these formsthe mass stemis feminine, the otherthe count stemis neuter.


15/16

15

The denotation of Discontinuous Formation on any occasion of linguistic use is a

function which assigns, to each atomless mereological subset of the universe of

discourse of the model for that occasion, an endomorphic image of that subset

which is atomistic.

In the case at hand, Discontinuous Formation will map the set of amounts of tree onto an

atomistic mereological subset: the set of individual trees taken either one or more at a

time. One natural way to do so is to assign, to each amount of tree, the tree or trees which

that amount is part of. Thus, if an amount of tree is part of an individual tree, then the

amount is assigned to that tree; if an amount of tree is part of several trees (because part

of the amount belongs to one tree and part of it to another), then the amount is assigned

to the trees in question taken together. If the count stem drv- is interpreted on an

occasion of use whose universe of discourse has four trees, then the diagram in (32) could

represent its denotation on such an occasion.

Once we have the count stem drv-, everything else proceeds as with the forms in

(1)(18). Thus, if the count stem drv- denotes the (atomistic) mereological subset of

individual trees, then (33) makes the singular noun drvo denote these trees taken one at a

time, (35) makes the plural drveta denote the trees taken two or more at a time, and (38)

makes the collective stem drvec - refer to the set of discrete collections of individual trees.

(33) and (35) can then again apply to this set and select the collections of trees taken,

respectively, one or more at a time. In light of the preceding discussion, all this seems to

be as desired.

7. Other Cases?

The literature contains a number of other paradigms that seem to belong with the ones

above (Raguz 1997, 55.76; 67.142; Grivic ic 1999, 3).15

(52) listleaf

listovi leaves

lis c e foliage

lis c a foliages

(53) momc e (ormomak) man

momc ic i (ormomci) men

momc ad crew or team

momc adi crews or teams

15 Perhaps to be added here is the paradigmgrana,grane,granje,granja branch.


16/16

16

Yet, as a glance at the glosses of these forms will reveal, the differences in meaning

between these forms do not involve collectivization, but rather massification and

genericity (52) or semantic narrowing (53). In other words, they involve relexicalizations

of the collective forms as new lexical items (and are therefore outside the scope of this

study).

8. Conclusion

Serbo-Croatian has a set of nouns which display a number of oppositions of collectiv-

ity and number ((1)(18), (41), (42)). Given a mereological model-theoretical semantics,

these oppositions can be described in a formally explicit and empirically adequate way

given interpretations of countability (49), collectivity (38), and number (33), (35). More

complex forms of these oppositions ((48)) can be accounted for successfully given anoperation which generates discrete denotations out of continuous ones (51).

References

Baric , Eugenija, et al. (1979)Priruc nagramatika hrvatskog knjiz evnog jezika. Zagreb,

Skolska knjiga.

Grivic ic , Tamara (1999) Peculiarities in the Plural Forms of Croatian Nouns. Unpub-

lished article, University of California, Davis.

Grubis ic , Vinko (1995) Croatian Grammar. Zabreb, Hrvatska sveuc ilis na naklada.

Javarek, Vera and Miroslava Sudjic (1963) Teach Yourself Serbo-Croatian. London, St.

Pauls House Warwick Lane.

Ojeda, Almerindo (1993) Linguistic Individuals [CSLI Lecture Notes, 31]. Stanford,

Center for the Study of Language and Information. Stanford University.

Ojeda, Almerindo (1997) The Semantics of Counting Numerals of Latin. Journal of

Semantics 14: 143171.

Quine, Willard van Orman (1960) Word and Object. Cambridge, MIT Press.

Raguz , Dragutin (1997)Praktic na hrvatska gramatika. Zagreb, Medicinska naklada.

Serbo/croatian Collectives

Documents

Transcript of Serbo/croatian Collectives