Serbo-Croatian Split Vocatives: Class Change Via Lexicalization

1 Introduction

Serbo-Croatian (SC) is a language with a rich case morphology and a complex and specific lexical prosody.¹ Its case system consists of three main declension classes with seven cases, each interacting with the value of number. It displays pitch-accent lexical prosody: a system combining tone and stress (Zec 1999). SC morphology and prosody interact in complex ways, as discussed in Arsenijević 2010 and Simonović and Arsenijević 2014.

Vocatives of certain SC nouns occur with two different prosodic patterns: one faithful to the base, in the sense that it corresponds to a prosodic pattern displayed by at least one other case form, and another that receives the default prosodic pattern (a falling accent on the initial syllable). The former is restricted to indefinite contexts, and the latter to definite ones. I propose an analysis in terms of lexicalization, whereby definite vocatives of common nouns lexicalize into the equivalent of proper names. As a result, they are associated with the respective declension classes of proper names and take their prosodic pattern as well. The indefinite form, which is very rarely used, is derived productively and thus displays the prosodic pattern of the base.

Section 2 presents empirical details, section 3 proposes an analysis, and section 4 elaborates on its lexical and prosodic aspects.

2 Vocatives and Definiteness in Serbo-Croatian

The vocative is one of the seven forms making up the SC case system: the case used to address the hearer(s). It generally has its own distinctive ending: -u/-e in the masculine gender and -o/-e in the feminine, depending on the declension (sub)class, except in a few small classes where it is syncretic with the nominative, as in (1c).

(1) Masculine

a. poštar/konj                       poštare/konju
mailman/horse.nom     mailman/horse.voc
Feminine

b. sestra/lavica                    sestro/lavice
sister/worker.f.nom     sister/worker.f.voc

c. tetka                                   tetka
aunt.nom                           aunt.voc

A number of SC nouns, including but not limited to those with a vocative-nominative syncretism, show two different vocative forms distinguished by their ending and often also by their prosodic shape.

(2)

a. tȅtka                      tȅtko          (tȅtke)
aunt.nom/voc   aunt.voc   aunt.gen

b. kàpetaane         kapetánu           (kapetána)
captain.voc      captain.voc      captain.gen

All such pairs exhibit two general asymmetries. One member of the pair is rather regular in behavior: it shares the prosodic pattern of the base and has a vocative ending rather than being syncretic with the nominative. The other member exhibits irregularity in one or both of these dimensions. The regular member is always limited to indefinite uses of the vocative, and the irregular member to definite ones.

Nouns with the vocative-nominative syncretism are typically -a declension nouns, either proper names (Tea, Mia, Ivana, Jasmina) or kinship terms (tata 'dad', mama 'mom', deda 'grandpa', baba 'grandma'). While for those with three or more syllables the conditions for the syncretism are rather complex, in disyllabic nouns of the -a declension the syncretism can only occur if the first syllable bears a falling tone. Most of the nouns in this class are highly frequent, typically definitely used nouns, often denoting kinship and other relations. I argue that due to frequent definite use, certain definite vocatives lexicalize into suppletive forms; that is, they develop a suppletive form reserved for definite use (instead of their compositional use that is unrestricted regarding definiteness). The falling initial syllable, representing the default prosodic shape, reflects a lack of lexical prosodic specification, a property that plays a role in specifying the declension subclass a noun belongs to. The role of the falling initial syllable is thus to detach the lexicalized vocative from the declension subclass of its base.

The vocative is used to address the collocutor, and the collocutor is likely to be definite—that is, both unique and familiar. However, there are uses that involve arguably indefinite nominal expressions, such as the predicative part in the so-called expressive use (Arsenijević 2007). Feminines that do not exhibit syncretism with the nominative (those that are not kinship terms...