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 tele janje pile unuc e ciganc e june zvijer drijebe z bure dugme uz e biser otok klas kamen snop prut cvijet SpecPl telic i janjci2 pilic i unuc ic i ciganc ic i junci zvjeri drjepci z bureta dugmeta uz eta biseri otoci klasovi kameni3 snopovi prutovi cvjetovi CollSg telad janjad pilad unuc ad ciganc ad junad zvjerad drebad z burad dugmad uz ad biserje otoc je klasje kamenje snoplje4 pruc e cvijec e CollPl teladi janjadi piladi unuc adi ciganc adi junadi zvjeradi drebadi z buradi dugmadi uz adi biserja otoc ja klasja kamenja snoplja5 pruc a cvijec a Gloss calf lamb chicken little grandchild Romany child small bullock beast foal barrel button rope pearl island cob stone bundle twig flower

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

Intuitively, while specific forms name individuals, collective forms name collections of individuals, 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) may therefore 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 from janjac, an infrequent variant of janje (Raguz 1997, 55.71). 3 Some speakers may also use the long form kamenovi. 4 Some speakers may also use the long form snopovlje. 5 Some speakers may also use the long form snopovlja.

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. telad names [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 kidneys, one would use specific numerals like jedan 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 collective numerals like jedni one and dvoji two (bearing in mind that both govern here the nominative plural). (22) jedni bubrezi one.MASC.COLL kidney.MASC.NOM.PL one 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.

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.SG one 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 feminine. 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 and plural inflection. The effect of these morphological processes on the base form tel calf can be diagrammed as follows.

4 PLURAL (telic i) (28) STEM (tel) SINGULAR (tele)

PLURAL (teladi) STEM (telad) SINGULAR (telad) In this diagram, the downward arrow from tel to telad represents the derivational process that creates collective stems from specific ones; the forked rightward arrows out of tel and telad represent 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 for dugme and bure is -eta rather than -ta (otherwise a natural reduction ee e in the specific forms would have to be given up in exchange for a less desirable change ea a 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 (NEUTER vs. 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 discourse for 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 relation for 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 if the 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 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 model for the interpretation of SC nouns on 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 if the 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
(39) a+b+c+d a+b+c+e a+b+c+d+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 a+e b b+c c b+d d b+e e c+d c+e 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 of discourse bear the partitive relation to an element y 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, d are all the individual calves contained in the model diagrammed in (30). If these are the only individuals the root tel calf can be true of, then tel would have to denote the subset diagrammed in (32), as this is the only mereological subset that contains no individual entities other than calves.

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

Fig. 2 The denotation of the root tel calf

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

a+b+d

a+c+d

b+c+d

a+b

a+c

a+d

b+c

b+d

c+d

Fig. 3 The denotation of the specific singular tele individual calf

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

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

a+b+d

a+c+d

b+c+d

a+b

a+c

a+d

b+c

b+d

c+d

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

And given the interpretation of telic 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 that A and B are mereological subsets of the universe of discourse of a model. Let us suppose further that j is a function from A to B. We will say that j is a homomorphism if and only if j telescopes the partitive relation of the model as it maps A into B.9 We will also say that a homomorphism j: A B is an endomorphism if and only if B is a subset of A . Finally, we will say that B is an endomorphic image of A if and only if j is 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 letting A be the mereological subset diagrammed
9 More precisely, if x and y are elements of A, and if x is part of y, then j(x) is either part of j(y) or else equal to j(y).

9 in (32), by setting B = {a+b , c+d , a+b+c+d }, and by letting j be the function that assigns every element of B to itself and maps every other element of A into the least inclusive element of B that has it as part.

(37)

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

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

For, notice that j maps every element of A either into itself or else into an element of A that has it as part, thus telescoping the partitive relation of the model as it maps A onto Bwhich is a subset of A. 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 + d and b + c are two discrete collections of calves taken one at a time, and (a+d) + (b+c) = a+b+c+d are 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 telad on 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 mereological subset is, trivially, an endomorphic image of itself.

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+d and 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 telad ever denoted such a set, the inflection of this stem for singularity would select the set formed by these elements. The denotation of the collective singular telad group of calves then, could be represented as follows. (39) 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

Fig. 6 The denotation of the collective singular stem telad group of calves

Given the intepretation of telad in (19c), this seems to be as desired. It should be emphasized 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 interpretations 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

(40)

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

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

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

5. The case of oko 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 oko uho SpecPl oka uha Coll oc i11 us i12 Gloss eye ear

(41) (42)

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 of ok eye.

11 A regular phonological process k c / 12 A regular phonological process h s /

i applies here. i applies here.

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) for oc i and (46)(47) for us i. (44) jedne oc i one.FEM.COLL eye.FEM.COLL one pair of eyes (45) dvoje oc i two.FEM.COLL eye.FEM.COLL two 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 of oc i and us i may be extended to the numerically invariant bubrezi mentioned in (22) and (23).

6. The Case of drva wood

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 (48) drvo SpecPl drveta CollSg drvec e CollPl drvec a Mass drva Gloss 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 individual 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). Accounting for 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 required by (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 one another 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 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)

COUNT STEM (drv)

PLURAL (drveta) 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 stem drv-. This derivational process is not semantically 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 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) list leaf listovi leaves lis c e foliage lis c a foliages (53) momc e (or momak) man momc ic i (or momci) men momc ad crew or team momc adi crews or teams
15 Perhaps to be added here is the paradigm grana, grane, granje, granja branch.

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 collectivity 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 an operation which generates discrete denotations out of continuous ones (51).

References Baric , Eugenija, et al. (1979) Priruc na gramatika hrvatskog knjiz evnog jezika. Zagreb, Skolska knjiga. Grivic ic , Tamara (1999) Peculiarities in the Plural Forms of Croatian Nouns. Unpublished 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.