Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024) | 27–57 | CC BY SA 4.0
Kristina Gregorčič (ORCID: 0000-0002-4255-5464)
Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Slovenija
kristina.gregorcic@ff.uni-lj.si
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/16.1.02
The use, meaning and funcTions of slovene bare pronouns
The paper presents selected aspects of the use and meaning of Slovene bare pronouns. 
An extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of concordances from the reference 
corpus Gigafida 2.0 allows for a new, more accurate classification of these pronouns 
in terms of their indefinite pronoun functions (Haspelmath 1997), as well as their cate-
gorization as epistemic indefinite pronouns and Negative Polarity Items. Furthermore, 
the corpus data show that the placement of bare pronouns in a clause is predictable, 
typically depending on the complexity of the pronominal phrase and the speaker’s 
communicative intentions.
Keywords: Slovene bare pronouns, epistemic indefinite pronouns, Negative Polarity 
Items, implicational map for indefinite pronoun functions, corpus analysis
Prispevek predstavlja izbrane vidike rabe in pomena poljubnostnih zaimkov. Obsež-
nejša količinska in kakovostna analiza konkordanc iz referenčnega korpusa Gigafida 
2.0 omogoča novo, točnejšo opredelitev poljubnostnih zaimkov z vidika funkcij nedo-
ločnih zaimkov (Haspelmath 1997) ter njihovo uvrstitev med epistemične nedoločne 
zaimke in k negativni polarnosti usmerjene izraze. Poleg tega korpusni podatki kažejo 
na predvidljivost stave poljubnostnih zaimkov v stavku; ta je običajno odvisna od 
kompleksnosti zaimenske zveze in govorčevih sporočevalnih namenov.
Ključne besede: poljubnostni zaimki, epistemični nedoločni zaimki, k negativni polarnosti 
usmerjeni izrazi, implikacijski zemljevid funkcij nedoločnih zaimkov, korpusna analiza
1 IntroductIon1
In his monograph based on an analysis of indefinite pronouns in 140 natural 
languages, Haspelmath (1997) identifies nine functions that indefinite pronouns 
can perform in any language. An attempt to identify the functions of Slovene 
1  This paper is based on a broader and more comprehensive study that is detailed in Semantični in prag-
matični vidiki k negativni polarnosti usmerjenih nedoločnih zaimkov (Gregorčič 2023).
28 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
indefinite pronouns à la Haspelmath (1997) has already been made by Willis 
(2013: 394). However, this attempt does not fully capture the various dimen-
sions of use and meaning displayed by Slovene indefinite pronouns. Further-
more, Slovene grammars ascribe the status of indefinite pronouns either only 
to some pronoun series with characteristics of indefinite pronouns (Toporišič 
2000), or to pronoun series that do not belong to the typological category of 
indefinite pronouns (Janežič 1863; Breznik 1916 and 1934; Bajec et al. 1973). 
It is therefore necessary to re-examine Slovene indefinite pronouns to provide 
an updated, more accurate classification.
Among the Slovene indefinite pronouns that have already been the subject of 
more detailed discussions are ni-pronouns (e.g., nihče ‘no one’, nič ‘nothing’), 
which are Negative Concord Items (Ilc 2019),2 and koli-pronouns (e.g., kdorkoli 
‘anyone’, karkoli ‘anything’), which belong to the group of Negative Polarity 
Items triggering the Free Choice implicature in non-negative modal contexts 
(Gregorčič 2021).3 There has been considerably less focus on ne-pronouns (e.g., 
nekdo ‘someone’, nekaj ‘something’) and bare pronouns (e.g., kdo ‘someone/
anyone’, kaj ‘something/anything’). The purpose of our paper is to define the 
use, meaning and functions of the latter. sectIon 2 provides an overview of the 
treatment of bare pronouns in selected Slovene grammars. sectIon 3 outlines 
Haspelmath’s typology of indefinite pronoun functions (1997). sectIon 4 presents 
the results of our quantitative and qualitative study of randomly selected con-
cordances with bare pronouns from the reference corpus of written standard 
Slovene Gigafida 2.0, focusing on the functions of bare pronouns in terms of 
Haspelmath’s typology (1997) and on the position of bare pronouns in a clause. 
sectIon 5 summarizes the main findings and concludes the paper.
2  Negative Concord Items (NCIs) are expressions that require the presence of clausemate propositional 
negation for grammaticality. Although these expressions can be morphologically negative (Slovene NCIs, 
for instance, contain the negative morpheme ni-), negated clauses with one or more NCIs typically yield 
single negation interpretations, as opposed to languages without Negative Concord, such as standard English, 
where each negative pronoun contributes its own negative interpretation. A detailed discussion of Slovene 
NCIs is provided in Ilc (2019).
3  Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) are expressions that typically denote minimal values and are licensed in 
semantically negative environments, such as the scope of negation and other semantically negative expres-
sions (e.g., without and doubt). The NPI-licensing environments were first described as a homogeneous 
group in Ladusaw (1980). A more detailed discussion of Slovene NPIs can be found in Gregorčič (2018, 
2021 and 2023).
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 29
2 bare pronouns In slovene grammars4
Bare pronouns (for an overview, see table 1), formed from interrogative pronouns 
by conversion, have not been the subject of detailed discussion in technical 
and scientific linguistic literature. Brief overviews of their use and meaning 
can be found in the grammars of Janežič (1863), Breznik (1916 and 1934), 
Bajec et al. (1973) and Toporišič (2000).
Janežič (1863) classifies bare pronouns within the category of indefinite pronouns, 
which include ni-pronouns (nihče ‘no one’, nič ‘nothing’), quantifying pronouns 
(marsikdo ‘many a person’, marsikaj ‘many a thing’), universal pronouns (vsakdo 
‘everyone’, vse ‘everything’) and ne-pronouns (nekdo ‘someone’, nekaj ‘something’). 
He presents bare pronouns as descriptions of “possible, uncertain or merely imaginary” 
referents (Janežič 1863: 225), illustrating their use in descriptions of generic, 
iterative or stative eventualities (1a), in subordinate clauses of contingency (1b), 
and in negated modal existential wh-constructions with the verb imeti ‘have’ (1c).5 
In the examples below, the relevant bare pronouns are bolded for the sake of clarity.
(1) 
a. Včasi se vržejo otroci po kom iz bližnje rodbine.
sometimes refl throw.3pl.prs children after npi.person.loc from near family
‘Sometimes children take after someone from their close family.’
(Janežič 1863: 225)
b. Kdor očetu ali materi kaj vzame pa pravi:
who.rel father.dat or mother.dat npi.thing.acc take.3sg.prs and say.3sg.prs
ni greh – tovarš tolovajev je tak.
neg.be.3sg.prs sin comrade bandits.gen be.3sg.prs like.this
‘Whoever takes anything from their father or mother, saying, “It is not a 
sin” – they are a comrade of bandits.’ 
(Janežič 1863: 225)
4  We gloss bare pronouns as follows: npi.ontological category. We have adopted this approach to avoid 
confusion between Slovene bare pronouns and English indefinite pronouns of the any- and some-series. Even 
though both any-pronouns and bare pronouns belong to the category of NPIs, they yield different interpretations 
in non-negative modal contexts (see Gregorčič 2023). Some-pronouns, on the other hand, can refer to specific 
referents, which is not typical of bare pronouns. Consequently, Slovene bare pronouns do not consistently translate 
into English as any- or some-pronouns, as evidenced by our translations of the Slovene example sentences.
5  For more information about modal existential wh-constructions, see Grosu (2004).
30 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
c. nima kaj prigrizniti
neg.have.3sg.prs npi.thing.acc snack.inf
‘(s)he has nothing to snack on’
(Janežič 1863: 165)
Breznik (1916 and 1934) adopts Janežič’s classification (1863) of bare 
pronouns. In the first edition of his grammar, he defines bare pronouns as words 
with a “more general, indefinite meaning” compared to ne-pronouns (Breznik 
1916: 108). In the second edition, he replaces his initial semantic description 
of bare pronouns with a more prescriptive usage description (Breznik 1934: 
104). He emphasizes the preference for substituting the indefinite-article-like 
numeral e(de)n ‘one’ with bare pronouns in dependent and independent questions 
(2a), in structures expressing commands and wishes (2b), and in descriptions 
of future events (2c).
(2)
a. Ali bi hotel priti kak večer (ne: en večer!)
q cond want.ptcp come.inf npi.det.acc evening.acc neg one evening
k meni na prejo?
to me.dat on spinning
‘Would you like to come to my place some evening (not: one evening!) 
to do a bit of spinning?’
(Breznik 1934: 104)
b. No, Luka, pa reci kako (kakšno) pametno
well Luka ptcl say.2sg.imp npi.det.acc npi.det.acc smart.acc
(ne: eno pametno).
neg one smart.acc
‘Well, Luka, say something smart then (not: one smart thing).’
(Breznik 1934: 104)
c. Vam se bo enkrat še dobro godilo (prav: kedaj).
you.dat refl aux.3sg.fut one.day ptcl well live.ptcp correct npi.time
‘You will do well one day (correct: someday).’
(Breznik 1934: 104)
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 31
Bajec et al. (1973: 185) continue the tradition of classifying bare pronouns 
as indefinite pronouns. The authors define indefinite pronouns as descriptions 
of undefined or prototypical entities, with ne-pronouns referring to specific 
unnamed entities and bare pronouns referring to non-specific entities (Bajec 
et al. 1973: 189). The authors thus recommend the use of bare pronouns in 
generic (3a) and modal descriptions (3b), as well as negated clauses (3c). They 
also illustrate the use of bare pronouns in dependent and independent questions 
(3d), and in conditional clauses (3e).
(3)
a. Po njej se pretaka življenje,
through her.loc refl flow.3sg.prs life
ki nekaj velja (nam. ki kaj velja).
rel something count.3sg.prs instead rel npi.quantity count.3sg.prs
‘Through it flows life that is worth something.’
(Bajec et al. 1973: 189)
b. Vprašati morate nekoga (nam. koga),
ask.inf must.2pl.prs someone.acc instead npi.person.acc
ki je dalj časa tu.
rel be.3sg.prs longer time here
‘You need to ask someone who has been here longer.’
(Bajec et al. 1973: 189)
c. Nečesa takšnega ne zmore ves svet
something.gen like.this neg can.3sg.prs whole world
(nam. kaj takega ali česa takega).
instead npi.thing.acc like.this or npi.thing.gen like.this
‘The whole world cannot do anything like this.’
(Bajec et al. 1973: 189)
d. Starost je priča, kako je kdo preživel mladost.
age be.3sg.prs witness how aux.3sg.prs npi.person.nom spend.ptcp youth
‘Age bears witness to how someone has spent their youth.’
(Bajec et al. 1973: 185)
32 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
e. Kaj bo, če pride kak vihar?
what be.3sg.fut if come.3sg.prs npi.det.nom storm.nom
‘What if there is a storm?’
(Bajec et al. 1973: 185)
Toporišič (2000) uses the term indefinite pronoun only to refer to ne-pro-
nouns. For bare pronouns, he introduces the term randomness pronouns, as 
they are used when there are no restrictions on the choice of potential referents. 
As with all pronoun series, the author categorizes individual bare pronouns 
according to their word-class properties and the ontological categories to which 
they refer. An overview of bare pronouns, based on Toporišič (2000: 311, 335, 
406), is given in table 1.
NOMINAL ADJECTIVAL
person thing property class possession quantity
kdó kàj kàk(šen) katéri čigáv kóliko (kàj)
ADVERBIAL
place time property
location destination distribution manner quantity
kjé kàm kód kdàj kakó kóliko
table 1: Bare pronouns according to their word-class properties and the ontological categories to which 
they refer 
Toporišič (2000: 311–312) notes that – in contrast to ne-pronouns, which 
refer to specific entities that are known or unknown, but never named – bare 
pronouns refer to non-specific entities that can be freely chosen from the 
pronoun’s referential domain. In one of the examples, the author shows that 
both ne- and bare pronouns can refer to small quantities (4), but he explic-
itly characterises their mutual substitution as not recommended (2000: 344). 
Instead, he notes the interchangeability of bare pronouns with koli-pronouns,6 
with the phrase ta in oni ‘this and that one’, and with the phrase consisting of 
a bare pronoun preceded by the emphatic particle sploh ‘even’ (2000: 312).
6  The interchangeability and semantic affinities between bare and koli-pronouns are also pointed out in 
Bajec (1972).
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 33
(4)
Kakšne orehe boš našla v skrinji (‘nekaj orehov’).
npi.det.acc walnuts.acc aux.2sg.fut find.ptcp in chest some walnuts
‘You will probably find some walnuts in the chest.’
(Toporišič 2000: 344)
According to Toporišič (2000: 312), the typical environments for bare 
pronouns are conditional, desiderative, interrogative and exclamatory clauses. 
The author illustrates their use in descriptions of general truths, customs, pre-
dictions and wishes (5a–b), in conditional and semantically similar temporal 
clauses (5c), and in dependent and independent questions (5d).
(5)
a. Močilar mi je včasih kaj razkladal
Močilar me.dat aux.3sg.prs sometimes npi.thing.acc tell.ptcp
o nekdanjih časih.
about past times
‘Močilar used to tell me some stories about the old days.’
(Toporišič 2000: 311)
b. Ko bi mi kdo hotel pomagati!
if.only cond me.dat npi.person.nom want.ptcp help.inf
‘If only someone would help me!’
(Toporišič 2000: 312)
c. Če je kdo pred vrati, ga povabi noter.
if be.3sg.prs npi.person.nom in.front.of door him.acc invite.2sg.imp inside
‘If there is anyone at the door, invite them in.’
(Toporišič 2000: 312)
d. Ali je kdo pred vrati?
q be.3sg.prs npi.person.nom in.front.of door
‘Is there anyone at the door?’
(Toporišič 2000: 312)
34 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
3 HaspelmatH’s typology of IndefInIte pronouns (1997)
As illustrated in sectIon 2, Toporišič (2000) restricts the category of indefinite 
pronouns to ne-pronouns. In contrast, Janežič (1863), Breznik (1916 and 1934) 
and Bajec et al. (1973) propose an expanded category of indefinite pronouns that 
encompasses additional pronoun series, including bare, universal, quantifying 
and ni-pronouns. Vidovič Muha (2013: 293–298) presents a classification of 
pronouns based on their definiteness, which is determined by textual actual-
ization. As textually indefinite pronouns, she characterizes ne-pronouns, bare 
pronouns, quantifying pronouns, as well as pronouns expressing otherness 
(drugi ‘other’) and paucity (redkokdo ‘few people’, redkokaj ‘few things’), as 
they all convey the speaker’s inability to pinpoint the identity and/or number 
of potential referents.
The use of the term indefinite pronoun presented so far does not align with 
Haspelmath’s typological definition (1997), which is based on an in-depth 
analysis of a more narrowly studied sample of 40 languages and an additional, 
more roughly studied sample of 100 languages.7 Haspelmath’s study shows 
that, crosslinguistically, indefinite pronouns share morphological, semantic and 
syntactic properties. Morphologically, they are derived from the numeral one, 
interrogative pronouns or generic expressions; their indefiniteness is indicated 
by special affixes, particle clusters, reduplication and/or root transformations 
(Haspelmath 1997: 22–29). Semantically, indefinite pronouns refer to one of 
the basic ontological categories: person, thing, place, direction, time, manner, 
cause, quantity, determiner or property (Haspelmath 1997: 21–22, 29–31). 
Syntactically, they are characterized by multifunctionality, which means that 
they are compatible with a number of different syntactic environments in 
7  The sampling method and the languages studied are detailed in Chapter 2 (Haspelmath 1997: 15–20). 
The monograph does not provide an analysis of Slovene indefinite pronouns.
fIgure 1: Implicational map for indefinite pronoun functions (Haspelmath 1997: 64)
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 35
which they yield fully predictable interpretations (Haspelmath 1997: 58–77). 
A single indefinite pronoun series is therefore expected to perform one or 
more of the nine functions presented on Haspelmath’s implicational map for 
indefinite pronoun functions (1997: 64), illustrated in fIgure 1. Since seman-
tically related functions are adjacent on the map, Haspelmath predicts that 
a particular pronoun series can only perform the combinations of functions 
that form a continuous field. On the far left of the implicational map are the 
functions of pronouns whose main characteristic is reference to a single, i.e., 
specific existing referent. This may be a known referent that the speaker does 
not wish to identify (6) or an unknown referent that they cannot identify (7).
(6)
Somebody called while you were away: guess who!
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (5))
(7)
I heard something, but I couldn’t tell what kind of sound it was.
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (6))
The semantically related irrealis non-specific function is located to the right 
of the specific (un)known functions. It is typical of pronouns used in descrip-
tions of hypothetical, potentially viable, but not actual situations, which name 
a referent that cannot exist in the real world (8).
(8)
Please try somewhere else.
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (7))
The irrealis non-specific function is followed on the right by the question, 
conditional, indirect negation, direct negation and comparative functions. These 
presuppose the use of indefinite pronouns in irrealis (interrogative, conditional 
and negated clauses) and realis environments (complements of comparatives) 
that allow for the quantitative use of superlatives enabling inferences from 
minimum to maximum values (see Fauconnier 1975). This kind of use is 
illustrated in (9): if a person does not have even the slightest difficulty, this 
necessarily implies that they do not have any major difficulty either.
36 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
(9)
Imeli ne boste niti najmanjših težav. = Imeli ne boste ne najmanjših ne 
majhnih ne velikih ne največjih možnih težav.
‘You will not have the slightest problem. = You will not have the slightest problem, 
nor a small problem, nor a big problem, nor the biggest problem possible.’
In addition to enabling the quantitative use of superlatives, the environments 
typical of the question, conditional, indirect negation, direct negation and com-
parative functions are compatible with Negative Polarity Items (Haspelmath 
1997: 111–122).
Indefinite pronouns perform the question function if they are used in polar 
or content questions, whether rhetorical or not (10). The indirect negation 
function is characterized by the use of indefinite pronouns in the scope of 
semantically negative expressions (e.g., without, doubt, be afraid of) or in 
the scope of non-clausemate negation (11). In contrast, the direct negation 
function presupposes the use of indefinite pronouns in the scope of clausemate 
propositional negation (12).8
(10)
Did anybody tell you anything about it?
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (8))
(11)
I don’t think that anybody knows the answer.
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (12))
(12)
Nobody knows the answer.
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (11))
8  A proposition (or a part of it) is in the scope of an expression if the latter affects its interpretation. In 
example (i), the proposition Anja ima čas ‘Anja has time’ is in the scope of negation, which denies its truth. 
In example (ii), the proposition is in the scope of the conjunction če ‘if’, which places it in the category of 
hypothetical descriptions.
(i) Anja nima časa. = Ne drži, da ima Anja čas.
‘Anja does not have time. = It is not true that Anja has time.’
(ii) Če ima čas, bo prišla na obisk. = Na obisk bo prišla pod pogojem, da ima čas.
‘If she has time, she will come to visit. = She will come to visit on condition that she has time.’
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 37
Haspelmath (1997) illustrates the conditional function with examples of 
indefinite pronouns in dependent conditional clauses introduced by if and its 
equivalents in other languages (13). However, conditional relationship can also 
be conveyed with the restrictor of a universal quantifier (see Liu 2010), with 
unconditionals, which name sets of conditions (see Cazinkić 2002; Rawlins 
2013), and with restrictive temporal clauses (see Farkas and Sugioka 1983). 
These are exemplified in (14a–c).
(13)
If you see anything, tell me immediately.
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (9))
(14)
a. Vsak učenec, ki bo pravilno rešil nalogo, bo nagrajen. ≈ Če bo učenec 
pravilno rešil nalogo, bo nagrajen.
‘Every student who solves the task correctly will be rewarded. ≈ If a 
student solves the task correctly, they will be rewarded.’
b. Kdorkoli bo pravilno rešil nalogo, bo nagrajen. ≈ Če jo bo pravilno 
rešil učenec a, če jo bo pravilno rešil učenec b, če jo bo pravilno rešil 
učenec c …, bo nagrajen.
‘Whoever solves the task correctly will be rewarded. ≈ If student a 
solves it correctly, if student b solves it correctly, if student c solves it 
correctly ..., they will be rewarded.’
c. Ko učenec pravilno reši nalogo, je nagrajen. ≈ Če učenec pravilno reši 
nalogo, je nagrajen.
‘When a student solves the task correctly, they are rewarded. ≈ If a 
student solves the task correctly, they are rewarded.’
The comparative function is characterized by the use of an indefinite pronoun 
in the nominal or clausal complement of a comparative. The indefinite pronoun 
establishes the standard of comparison which includes all alternatives of the 
compared item. In (15), the indefinite pronoun anywhere refers to all German 
cities except Freiburg, which is the compared item.
38 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
(15)
In Freiburg the weather is nicer than anywhere in Germany.
(Haspelmath 1997: 2, (10))
In the bottom right-hand corner of the implicational map is the free choice 
function, which is typical of indefinite pronouns that trigger the Free Choice 
implicature. They are used to convey a completely unrestricted choice between 
referential alternatives (see also Chierchia 2013), as illustrated in (16).
(16)
Anybody can solve this simple problem.
(Haspelmath 1997: 3, (13))
Like the contexts of the question, conditional, indirect negation, direct 
negation and comparative functions, the contexts of the free choice function 
enable the quantitative use of superlatives. However, unlike the former, the 
latter allow inferences from maximum to minimum values, as in (17). If a 
detergent removes the toughest stain, it is expected to remove the less persis-
tent stains as well.
(17)
To čistilno sredstvo lahko odstrani najtrdovratnejše madeže. = To sredstvo 
lahko odstrani najtrdovratnejše, trdovratne in netrdovratne madeže.
‘This detergent can remove the toughest stains. = This detergent can remove 
the toughest, tough, less persistent and the least persistent stains.’
On the basis of the properties of indefinite pronouns just presented, 
Haspelmath (1997: 11–12) excludes from this group of pronouns quantifiers 
of intermediate value such as few, generic pronouns such as man, universal 
quantifiers such as all, and pronouns of identity and otherness such as same 
and other. He argues that the expression of quantity, which is the central 
semantic property of quantifiers, is not a key feature of indefinite pronouns. 
Furthermore, universal quantifiers, which refer to all elements in a set, as well 
as identity and otherness expressions, which specify the identity of a referent, 
are definite and therefore fundamentally different from indefinite pronouns. 
Haspelmath’s definition of indefinite pronouns thus differs significantly from 
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 39
the definitions in traditional grammars of Western languages, including the 
Slovene grammars listed in sectIon 2.
Slovene indefinite pronouns have already been classified according to 
Haspelmath’s typology by Willis (2013).9 His implicational map for indefinite 
pronoun functions is presented in fIgure 2. 
Willis (2013) does not provide a detailed analysis of Slovene pronouns, as 
his research aims to present the use of indefinite pronouns in all South Slavic 
languages. Consequently, the classification of Slovene indefinite pronouns in 
his study is not entirely accurate, as evidenced by the examples from Slovene 
grammars presented in sectIon 2. The functions of Slovene bare pronouns 
therefore need to be redefined.
4 survey: bare pronouns In tHe reference corpus GiGafida 2.0
4.1 researcH goals and metHodology
The referential quality of pronouns is contingent on their co-text and wider 
context (Vidovič Muha 2013). It is therefore important to define them using 
a sufficiently large representative sample. In the existing linguistic literature, 
9  In light of the characteristics of indefinite pronouns described above, the colloquial pronoun en ‘one’ can 
also be considered as an indefinite pronoun. However, it is important to note that due to desemanticization, 
partial morphological and phonological reduction, and loss of syntactic flexibility, en is gradually acquiring 
characteristics of indefinite articles (see Bažec 2012). Similar processes can also be observed in the bare 
pronoun kakšen ‘some/any’, which shows signs of phonological reduction in the (colloquial) example below:
(i) Včash probam kšn nov trend, včash mi je ful všeč, včash tut prbližn ne.
‘Sometimes, I try out a new trend; sometimes I like it a lot, sometimes not at all.’
Source: www.instagram.com/p/CT2g_zCIb08/?img_index=1 (published on 15 September 2021).
fIgure 2: Implicational map for Slovene indefinite pronoun functions by Willis (2013: 394)
40 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
bare pronouns have only been the subject of rough and partly misleading de-
scriptions (see sectIons 2 and 3). The aim of our research was to describe their 
use, meaning and functions on the basis of a more substantial set of examples.
Our research was based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of 
samples obtained from the corpus of written standard Slovene Gigafida 2.0 
using the SketchEngine tool.10 We examined randomly generated samples of 
700–800 concordances with the bare pronouns listed in table 1. The sampling 
process proved to be rather challenging, as bare pronouns are homographs of 
interrogative and some relative pronouns, and they are also tagged as either 
interrogative or relative pronouns in Gigafida 2.0. Consequently, the sampling 
was carried out in two to three steps.11
The first step consisted of an advanced search by lemmas (Advanced > 
Query type: Lemma), followed by the extraction of random samples of 1,000 
concordances (Get a random sample). The random samples were manually 
filtered to exclude any examples that were irrelevant to the study, i.e., those 
that contained interrogative or relative pronouns, but no bare pronouns. After 
eliminating irrelevant and duplicate concordances, different sample sizes were 
obtained, each containing fewer than 700 concordances. As a result, a second 
sampling step was conducted, in which most of the unwanted concordances 
containing interrogative and relative pronouns were filtered out using the 
advanced filtering function (Filter > Advanced). The sizes of the random 
samples extracted in this step were set in such a way that the final number 
of concordances gathered in both steps combined was between 700 and 800 
per individual bare pronoun. This process yielded the final samples for the 
pronouns kdo, kaj, kakšen, čigav, kdaj, kje and kam.
The second sampling step for the pronouns kod, kako and koliko yielded only 
226, 47 and 23 relevant examples of use, respectively, from the total of 1,000 
randomly selected concordances. The third sampling step was thus needed, in 
which the queries were further adjusted to ensure a higher percentage of relevant 
concordances in the random samples. From the random samples of 1,000 
10  Although Gigafida 2.0 is considered a corpus of standard language, it should be noted that its composi-
tion is not balanced in terms of text genres: 64.3% of the corpus consists of articles from printed journals 
and newspapers, while 28.0% of the texts are from online sources, the most prominent of which are again 
media publications (Krek et al. 2019). It would be beneficial for future research to analyse the use of bare 
pronouns in non-journalistic and spoken texts as well.
11  The methodology with all search queries is described in detail in Gregorčič (2023).
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 41
concordances, we retrieved 241 examples with the pronoun kod, 163 examples 
with the pronoun kako and 44 examples with the pronoun koliko. Given the low 
frequency of occurrence, we deemed it inappropriate to pursue further sampling, as 
speakers seem to use these pronouns much less frequently than other bare pronouns.
table 2 presents the number of concordances included in each sample.
pronoun
kd
o
ka
j12
ka
kš
en
ka
te
ri
či
ga
v
kd
aj
kj
e
ka
m
ko
d
ka
ko
ko
lik
o
t
o
t
a
l
number of 
concordances
723 747 703 734 270 718 769 758 421 220 58 6,121
table 2: Sample sizes
We first classified the concordances according to Haspelmath’s typology of 
indefinite pronouns (1997). As we observed a relatively predictable placement 
of bare pronouns, we subsequently classified all the concordances according to 
the position of the bare pronoun in a clause. We were particularly interested 
in whether the pronoun occurs in the clause-final position, which in the case 
of a stylistically unmarked sentence typically contains new information or 
the focus, or whether it occurs in the non-final position in a clause, which is 
usually reserved for the topic and the transition (Toporišič 2000: 668–678).
4.2 researcH results and dIscussIon 
In sectIon 4.2.1, we present the use, meaning and functions of bare pronouns as 
defined by Haspelmath (1997). In sectIon 4.2.2, we focus on the placement of bare 
pronouns in a clause. All examples in this section are taken from Gigafida 2.0, 
unless otherwise stated. They have not been modified in any way, except for 
the shortening of longer passages that are not relevant to our present research.
4.2.1 tHe use, meanIng and functIons of bare pronouns accordIng to HaspelmatH 
(1997)
The first column of table 3 presents the composition of all the samples of bare 
pronouns combined, while the subsequent columns show the composition of 
12  Our analysis focuses on the nominal pronoun kaj, not the homographic adverbial pronoun.
42 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
each individual bare pronoun sample in terms of Haspelmath’s classification 
of indefinite pronoun functions (1997).
Pronoun function total kdo kaj kakšen kateri čigav
free choice / / / / / /
comparative / / / / / /
direct negation 14.1% 5.8% 23.6% 13.9% 6.3% 2.2%
indirect negation 8.3% 11.3% 11.9% 4.7% 8.2% 2.2%
conditional 17.7% 27.1% 14.3% 15.1% 24.7% 3.7%
question 17.6% 17.4% 12.9% 11.9% 15.9% 75.2%
irrealis non-specific 42.3% 38.3% 37.3% 54.3% 45.0% 16.7%
specific unknown / / / / / /
specific known / / / / / /
kdaj kako kje kam kod
free choice / / / / /
comparative / / / / /
direct negation 1.7% 14.5% 13.8% 30.7% 26.6%
indirect negation 17.1% 6.4% 4.9% 6.9% 3.1%
conditional 16.2% 25.0% 20.8% 12.3% 13.5%
question 22.6% 10.9% 13.3% 6.7% 12.6%
irrealis non-specific 42.5% 43.2% 47.2% 43.4% 44.2%
specific unknown / / / / /
specific known / / / / /
table 3: Structure of the samples according to Haspelmath’s typology (1997)13
table 3 indicates that bare pronouns do not name specific (un)known 
referents. In the majority of concordances in our samples, they perform the 
irrealis non-specific function,14 as they occur in a wide variety of modal envi-
ronments and generic descriptions. The corpus data suggest that speakers tend 
13  The data pertaining to the pronoun koliko are not reported in table 3 due to the insufficient number of 
concordances in Gigafida 2.0. The scarcity of data suggests that this pronoun is only rarely used in modern 
Slovene.
14  The only exception is the sample of the pronoun čigav, whose usage patterns deviate from those exhibited 
by other bare pronouns in a number of aspects. In modern Slovene, čigav is used relatively infrequently, 
which is reflected in the small number of concordances in Gigafida 2.0. The deviation from the expected 
usage patterns is thus most likely a reflection of the pronoun’s fossilization in a limited set of environments.
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 43
to associate bare pronouns with descriptions of possible events (18a), as well 
as with descriptions of states, habits and recurrent events (18b).15
(18)
a. Morda lahko komu pomagate prav vi!
maybe easily npi.person.dat help.2pl.prs exactly you
‘Maybe it is you who can help someone!’
b. Vsak dan se zgodi kaj zanimivega.
every day refl happen.3sg.prs npi.thing.nom interesting
‘Something interesting happens every day.’
In all concordances that illustrate the irrealis non-specific function, bare 
pronouns occur in the scope of a modal or generic operator (19). In this respect, 
bare pronouns are fundamentally distinct from koli-pronouns, which generally 
avoid the scope of modal operators (20) (Gregorčič 2023: 104).
(19)
Če ste vajeni spletnega nakupovanja, lahko kupite
if be.2pl.prs used.to online shopping easily buy.2pl.prs
katero od zmagovalnih torbic.
npi.class.acc from winning handbags
‘If you are used to online shopping, you can buy one of the winning 
handbags.’
= It is possible for you to buy handbag a or handbag b or handbag c …
(20)
Domišljija lahko v katerikoli situaciji zapolni praznino.
imagination easily in npi.class.loc situation.loc fill.3sg.prs void
‘Imagination can fill the void in any situation.’
= For situation a and situation b and situation c …, it is the case that imagi-
nation can fill the void in that situation.
15  A review of the concordances illustrating bare pronouns in the irrealis non-specific function reveals 
that 36.9% feature bare pronouns in the scope of expressions of probability and possibility (e.g., verjetno 
‘probably’, morda ‘maybe’, predvidevati ‘suppose’), while 23.3% illustrate their use in descriptions of 
general truths and habits/recurrent events.
44 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
Modal environments highlight another semantic difference between bare and 
koli-pronouns. While the latter trigger the Free Choice implicature, suggesting 
unlimited freedom of choice between potential referents (see Gregorčič 2021 
and 2023), the former are unable to do so, as is evident from the paraphrases 
of (19) and (20). Bare pronouns typically foreground the speaker’s ignorance 
or indifference, which is the defining characteristic of epistemic indefinite 
pronouns (see Alonso-Ovalle and Menéndez-Benito 2015). This semantic 
feature of bare pronouns aligns with the irrealis non-specific function, which 
has been overlooked by Willis (2013: 394).
The corpus data also suggest that there is no reason to attribute the com-
parative function to bare pronouns, contrary to what has been proposed by 
Willis (2013: 394). In this function, pronouns are used in the complement 
of the comparative and are expected to establish the standard of comparison 
that includes all alternatives of the compared item (see (15)). Although bare 
pronouns can be found in complements of comparatives, they do not yield 
the predicted interpretation, as indicated in (21). The unbracketed part of 
the example is from Gigafida 2.0. In brackets is our own continuation of the 
corpus example that is semantically and pragmatically acceptable, and that 
precludes the interpretation that the phrase katero drugo tekmovanje refers to 
all other competitions.
(21)
Na tej olimpijadi je bilo lažje priti
on this Olympiad aux.3sg.prs be.ptcp easier come.inf
do nagrade kot na katerem drugem tekmovanju.
to prize than on npi.class.loc other competition.loc
(Ne pa lažje kot na vsakem od njih.)
neg but easier than on every from them
‘It was easier to win a prize at this Olympiad than at another competition. 
(But not easier than at every other competition.)’
According to Willis (2013: 394), bare pronouns perform the function of 
indirect negation, but not direct negation. This is not entirely consistent with 
the corpus data. In fact, Gigafida 2.0 contains a non-negligible number of 
concordances with bare pronouns in negated clauses. Bare pronouns interpret-
ed in the scope of clausemate propositional negation typically form complex 
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 45
phrases in which they are postmodified by adjectives, adverbs, pronouns or 
relative clauses. In (22), the phrase headed by the bare pronoun česa (i.e., česa 
podobnega) is in the scope of negation, as evidenced by the English translation: 
note that the English anything is a Negative Polarity Item (see footnote 3), so 
it must occur in the scope of the negative pronoun no one.
(22)
Mislim, da česa podobnega ni poskusil še nihče.
think.1sg.prs that npi.thing.gen similar neg.aux.3sg.prs try.ptcp yet no one
‘I think that no one has tried anything similar yet.’
The presence of a postmodifier plays an important role in determining the 
scopal interaction between the negator and the bare pronoun. When the bare 
pronoun lacks a postmodifier, it is interpreted outside the scope of clausemate 
propositional negation, as in (23). In the English translation of the sentence, 
the negator appears in a clause that is syntactically subordinate to the clause 
with the indefinite pronoun.
(23)
Če česa ni znala,
if npi.thing.gen neg.aux.3sg.prs know.ptcp
je segla po strokovnih knjigah.
aux.3sg.prs reach.ptcp along specialist books
‘If there was something that she did not know, she turned to specialist
books.’
The relevance of the postmodifier in determining the scopal interaction 
between clausemate propositional negation and bare pronouns can also be 
verified by a minimal modification of corpus example (22). If the postmodifier 
podobnega is removed from the complex phrase headed by the bare pronoun, as 
in (22'), the bare pronoun can only be interpreted outside the scope of negation.
(22')
Mislim, da česa ni poskusil še nihče.
think.1sg.prs that npi.thing.gen neg.aux.3sg.prs try.ptcp yet no one
‘I think there must be something that no one has tried yet.’
46 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
This phenomenon is similar to the inverse scope of negation illustrated in 
(24) and (25). Both examples feature the propositional negator not and have 
the subject realized by an indefinite nominal phrase preceding the negator 
(anyone in (24) and a doctor who knew anything about acupuncture in (25)). 
Despite the syntactic parallels between the two examples, the subject is in the 
scope of negation in (25), but not in (24).
(24)
*Anyone did not talk to me.
(de Swart 1998: 178, (5b))
(25)
A doctor who knew anything about acupuncture was not available.
(Linebarger 1980: 227, (21a), cited in de Swart 1998: 180, (13c))
The scopal properties of the propositional negation in (24) and (25) are 
indicated by the (un)grammaticality of these examples. The indefinite pronouns 
anyone in (24) and anything in (25) are Negative Polarity Items, whose ac-
ceptability depends on whether they occur in the scope of semantically negative 
expressions (see footnote 3). Given that the only negative expression in (24) and 
(25) is the negator not, we can conclude that anyone in (24) is not in the scope 
of the negator, since its use is ungrammatical. In contrast, anything in (25) is 
in the scope of the negator; if it were not, it would be just as ungrammatical 
as anyone in (24).
De Swart (1998) shows that the inverse scope of negation arises from the 
interplay of Grice’s maxims of quantity and relevance.16 Extending the scope 
of negation reduces the informative value of an utterance.17 Such a reduction 
can be justified only if it is compensated for. This can be achieved by increas-
ing the complexity of the message. The utterance thus becomes longer, which 
is disadvantageous from the point of view of the maxim of quantity, but this 
negative effect is counterbalanced by an enhanced informative value of the 
16  According to the maxim of quantity, speakers must limit themselves to communicating only what is 
necessary; according to the maxim of relevance, they must convey what is most relevant to the topic of the 
communicative exchange (see Grice 1975).
17  There are many more true negative statements than true affirmative statements about the world, because 
the latter are more specific and thus easier to falsify (see Horn 1989).
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 47
message. In accordance with the maxim of relevance, the addressees assume 
that the selection of a longer utterance is crucial for the accurate interpretation 
of the message. Consequently, they interpret the more complex structures 
of the utterance contrastively. This generates a positive implicature, which 
increases the informative value of the utterance. The positive implicature of 
(25) is illustrated in (25').
(25')
Some doctor was available.
De Swart (1998) suggests that the entire subject in (25) is in the semantic 
scope of negation, but that the positive implicature – a pragmatic element of 
the utterance – leads the addressees to interpret the more complex part of the 
sentence non-negatively. The interpretation of (25), shaped by the interplay 
of semantic and pragmatic factors, is presented in (25''). 
(25'')
A doctor was available, but not one who would know anything about acupuncture.
In light of de Swart’s findings (1998), the interaction between negation and 
the bare pronoun in (22), which is repeated below, can be explained from a 
pragmatic point of view. Although the entire nominal phrase česa podobnega 
occurs in the semantic scope of negation, the bare pronoun česa is simultaneously 
interpreted in a non-negative pragmatic environment created by the positive 
implicature that someone must have tried something before. This enables the 
interpretation that while the predicate is not true of the set described by the 
complex phrase česa podobnega, this does not mean that it is also not true of 
its superset described by the bare pronoun česa alone (22'').
(22)
Mislim, da česa podobnega ni poskusil še nihče.
think.1sg.prs that npi.thing.gen similar neg.aux.3sg.prs try.ptcp yet no one
‘I think that no one has tried anything similar yet.’
(22'')
Someone must have tried something before, but no one has tried anything similar.
48 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
The existence of this interpretation is supported by the examples from 
Gigafida 2.0 in which the positive implicature is explicitly stated, as in (26).
(26)
Videl sem nekaj izjemnih tekem,
see.ptcp aux.1sg.prs some extraordinary matches
česa takega pa še nikoli.
npi.thing.gen like.this but yet never
‘I have seen some extraordinary matches, but never anything like this.’
It is possible for unmodified bare pronouns to occur in the scope of clause-
mate propositional negation as well, but in a completely different context. In 
our samples, more than half of the examples illustrating the direct negation 
function show the use of bare pronouns in modal existential wh-constructions 
introduced by the modal verbs imeti ‘have’ and biti ‘be’ (27).
(27)
Hudo je, da se v krizi nimaš na koga obrniti.
bad be.3sg.prs that refl in crisis neg.have.2sg.prs on npi.person.acc turn.inf
‘It is terrible not having anyone to turn to in a crisis.’
However, the presence of the negator does not seem obligatory for the 
acceptability of bare pronouns in such contexts. Several concordances in our 
samples illustrate the use of bare pronouns in non-negated modal existential 
wh-constructions (28), whereby the bare pronoun assumes a hyperbolic meaning.18
18  We have verified this observation by searching the entire corpus. The results show that bare pronouns 
appear in 15,357 concordances with negated modal existential wh-constructions (query (i)), and in 2,471 
concordances with non-negated constructions of this type (query (ii)). In the latter case, the modal existential 
wh-construction typically does not occur in the scope of any other semantically negative expression.
(i).  [word="ne"][lemma="biti”&tag="G......n.*"][lemma="imeti"][lemma="kaj|kdo|kakšen|kateri|čigav|kda-
j|kje|kod|kam|kako|koliko"][tag="G..n.*"] | [lemma="biti"&tag="G......d.*"][lemma="imeti"][lemma="ka-
j|kdo|kakšen|kateri|čigav|kdaj|kje|kod|kam|kako|koliko"][tag="G..n.*"] | [lemma="imeti"&tag="G......d.*"] 
[lemma="kaj|kdo|kakšen|kateri|čigav|kdaj|kje|kod|kam|kako|koliko"][tag="G..n.*"]
(ii).  [lemma="imeti"&tag="G..s...n.*"][lemma="kaj|kdo|kakšen|kateri|čigav|kdaj|kje|kod|kam|kako|koliko"]
[tag="G..n.*"] | [word!="ne"][lemma="biti"&tag="G......n.*"][lemma="imeti"][lemma="kaj|kdo|kakšen|kat-
eri|čigav|kdaj|kje|kod|kam|kako|koliko"][tag="G..n.*"]
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 49
(28)
Dandanes se ima kam ozreti;
nowadays refl have.3sg.prs npi.direction look.inf
tovarni je veliko dal.
factory.dat aux.3sg.prs much give.ptcp
‘Today, he has somewhere to look; he has given a lot to the factory.’
The question thus arises as to whether it is reasonable to assign the direct 
negation function to bare pronouns at all. We have shown that their use in the 
scope of clausemate propositional negation is enabled by the presence of a 
positive implicature; in its absence, the pronoun escapes the scope of negation. 
The exception to this is the modal existential wh-construction, in which bare 
pronouns always occur in the scope of the clausemate propositional negator, 
but do not depend on its presence.
Haspelmath (1997) does not examine the examples of use in individual 
languages in much detail, so it is not entirely clear what status he would assign 
to Slovene bare pronouns. He claims that pragmatic parameters, which are 
rooted in the expectations of discourse participants, have no bearing on whether 
a pronoun assumes a particular function on his implicational map (Haspelmath 
1997: 82–86); the only relevant condition is that the pronoun occurs in the 
appropriate context and yields the expected interpretation. In the case of bare 
pronouns in the direct negation function, this means that they are expected 
to be interpreted in the scope of clausemate propositional negation with a 
non-specific meaning. In this respect, it seems reasonable to assign them the 
direct negation function. However, the examples provided by Haspelmath to 
illustrate the pragmatic effects triggered by indefinite pronouns are not entirely 
identical to those governing the use of bare pronouns in negated clauses. In 
(22) and (26) above, the presence of the positive implicature is necessary for 
the bare pronoun to be interpreted in the scope of clausemate negation at all. In 
contrast, the use of the English pronoun some in interrogative sentences such 
as (29), which Haspelmath (1997) cites to illustrate the pragmatic parameters 
influencing the interpretation of indefinite pronouns, is always possible and 
grammatical. The pragmatic effect of signalling the expectation of a positive 
answer is triggered by the pronoun itself, not by its context, as is the case in 
Slovene.
50 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
(29)
Do you think those men want to do some work?
(Lakoff 1969: 609–611, cited in Haspelmath 1997: 82, (151a))
Based on the results of our corpus analysis, we propose a revised implica-
tional map for the functions of Slovene bare pronouns in fIgure 3. The revised 
map differs from Willis’ (2013) in three respects: bare pronouns (i) perform the 
irrealis non-specific function, (ii) do not perform the comparative function, and 
(iii) perform the direct negation function if certain pragmatic conditions are 
met. The black line in fIgure 3 indicates the functions that can be attributed to 
bare pronouns based on corpus data, while the grey line indicates the functions 
attributed to these pronouns by Willis (2013: 394). 
4.2.2 tHe posItIon of bare pronouns In a clause
table 4 presents the proportion of nominal and adverbial bare pronouns in our 
samples, classified according to whether the phrase which they head occurs 
in the final or non-final position in a clause.
Number of examples Percentage
final Position with a postmodifier 1,440 28.2%
without a postmodifier 519 10.2%
TOTAL 1,959 38.4%
non-final Position with a postmodifier 534 10.4%
without a postmodifier 2,619 51.2%
TOTAL 3,153 61.6%
table 4: Nominal and adverbial bare pronouns according to their position in a clause
fIgure 3: New implicational map for the functions of Slovene bare pronouns
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 51
Speakers most often place phrases headed by bare pronouns in a non-final 
position in a clause. Their decision seems to be at least partly influenced by 
the presence of a postmodifier of the bare pronoun. When the postmodifier is 
present, speakers are more likely to place the phrase with the bare pronoun in 
the clause-final position. Bare pronouns without a postmodifier appear in the 
clause-final position only in a limited range of contexts: they are often reinforced 
by additive particles (e.g., še ‘also’, tudi ‘also’) (30a), or they occur in short 
clauses in which the clause-final position is the only available option for them. 
The most common types of construction in which this occurs are interrogative 
(30b), imperative (30c) and elliptical clauses, particularly elliptical negated 
modal existential wh-constructions (30d) and elliptical conditional clauses (30e).
(30)
a. Upam, da bo prišel še kdaj.
hope.1sg.prs that aux.3sg.fut come.ptcp also npi.time
‘I hope he will come back another time.’
b. Nikoli ne veš, kdo bo kje.
never neg know.2sg.prs who be.3sg.fut npi.location
‘You never know who will be somewhere.’
c. Storite kaj.
do.2pl.imp npi.thing.acc
‘Do something.’
d. So ljudje, ki nimajo kam.
be.3pl.prs people rel neg.have.3pl.prs npi.direction
‘There are people who do not have anywhere to go.’
e. Če kdo, je Jože vedno vedel odgovor.
if npi.person.nom aux.3sg.prs Jože always know.ptcp answer
‘If anyone, Jože always knew the answer.’
The examination of individual concordances reveals that speakers select the 
position of a bare pronoun according to the information to which they want 
to draw the addressee’s attention. In the clause-final (i.e., focus) position, the 
52 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
phrase headed by a bare pronoun is emphasized and understood as contributing 
new information; in the clause-initial (i.e., topic) position, it most frequently 
refers to the preceding clause or to referents whose identity is not essential to 
the message (see Toporišič 2000: 668–678). A phrase headed by a bare pronoun 
is part of the focus if the pronoun is postmodified, which narrows the set of 
potential referents of the pronominal phrase and thus contributes to the greater 
specificity of the message (31a), or if the speaker focuses on emphasizing the 
paucity of potential referents expressed by the pronoun (31b).19
(31)
a. Vsak dan se zgodi kaj zanimivega.
every day refl happen.3sg.prs npi.thing.nom interesting
‘Something interesting happens every day.’
b. Kar naprej se mi zdi, da je moja omara
just forward refl me.dat seem.3sg.prs that be.3sg.prs my wardrobe
prazna in da nujno rabim še kaj.
empty and that urgently need.1sg.prs also npi.thing.acc
‘I keep feeling that my wardrobe is empty and that I urgently need 
something else.’
In general, speakers use bare pronouns more often in the topic position 
than in the focus position. When the bare pronoun is part of the topic, the 
focus is either on the participant of the event that is not referred to with the 
bare pronoun (32a), or on the event as a whole (32b). In (32b), the focus is on 
losing and forgetting in general; the exact identification of the affected entity 
(kakšna reč) or the setting (kje) is not central to the message.
(32)
a. Če bo kdo potreboval mojo pomoč,
if aux.3sg.fut npi.person.nom need.ptcp my help
ve, kje me lahko najde.
know.3sg.prs where me.acc easily find.3sg.prs
‘If anyone needs my help, they know where they can find me.’
19  The expression of quantity is most often indicated by the presence of the additive particle še ‘also’ and 
the use of bare pronouns in emotionally marked elliptical structures (see (30a) and (30d–e) above).
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 53
b. Včasih kakšno reč izgubimo ali kje pozabimo,
sometimes npi.det.acc thing.acc lose.1pl.prs or npi.location forget.1pl.prs
pa tega še opazimo ne.
but this ptcl notice.1pl.prs neg
‘Sometimes we lose something or forget it somewhere, and we do not 
even notice it.’
Given that non-nominalized adjectival bare pronouns are incapable of 
forming independent phrases with sentence functions, their position was 
observed separately. The results are presented in table 5.
Number of examples Percentage
final Position 789 78.2%
non-final Position 220 21.8%
table 5: Adjectival bare pronouns according to their position in a clause
Speakers usually use nominal phrases with adjectival bare pronouns in 
the clause-final position. However, the informative focus of such a nominal 
phrase is typically not on the pronoun, but rather on the nominal head and its 
non-pronominal modifiers. In (33), the bare pronoun kakšna could therefore be 
omitted without significantly affecting the message (see also footnote 9 about 
the article-like behaviour of adjectival bare pronouns).
(33)
Nimamo dokaza, da je na Marsu kdaj obstajala
neg.have.1pl.prs evidence that aux.3sg.prs on Mars npi.time exist.ptcp
kakšna višja oblika življenja.
npi.det.nom higher.nom form.nom life.gen
‘We have no evidence that any superior life form has ever existed on Mars.’
Speakers can use adjectival bare pronouns to express small quantities, 
particularly in modal and generic contexts. In such instances, the speaker’s 
intention is often discernible through the presence of the additive particle še 
‘also’ or other contextual cues, as in (34).
54 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
(34)
Rokavi reke so ena sama velika prometnica, po kateri se
arms river be.3pl.prs one sole great thoroughfare along which refl
vsak dan premika na tisoče čolničev, stotine malo večjih
every day move.3sg.prs on thousands boats hundreds little larger
barkač, nekaj deset velikih ladij in kakšna čezoceanka.
tubs some ten large ships and npi.det.nom ocean.liner.nom
‘The river’s arms are great thoroughfares, carrying thousands of small boats, 
hundreds of slightly larger tubs, a few dozen large ships and the odd ocean 
liner every day.’
5 conclusIon
We have presented the use, meaning and functions of bare pronouns, identified 
through an extensive analysis of examples from Gigafida 2.0. In contrast to Top-
orišič’s classification (2000), we propose to classify bare pronouns as indefinite 
pronouns, which is in line with Haspelmath’s typological characterization (1997). 
The corpus data indicate that bare pronouns perform more functions on the impli-
cational map for indefinite pronoun functions than proposed by Willis (2013). In 
modal environments, they perform the irrealis non-specific function and reveal 
the speaker’s ignorance or indifference, which makes them epistemic indefinite 
pronouns. In addition, they perform the conditional, question, indirect negation 
and direct negation functions, which are typical of Negative Polarity Items.
Nominal and adverbial bare pronouns typically occur in a non-final position 
in a clause, with the purpose of referring to event participants and circumstanc-
es whose precise identification is not essential to the informative value of the 
utterance. In the clause-final position, they are typically postmodified, which 
enhances the informativity of the phrases they form. Alternatively, they may 
be unmodified, in which case they emphasize the paucity of referents. 
references
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2015. Epistemic indefinites: exploring modality 
beyond the verbal domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bajec, Anton. 1972. Relativa in indefinita v slovenščini. In: VIII. seminar slovenskega jezika, 
literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta UL. 24–34.
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 55
Bajec, Anton, Kolarič, Rudolf, Rupel, Mirko, Šolar, Jakob. 1973. Slovenska slovnica. Ljubljana: DZS.
Bažec, Helena. 2012. Gramatikalizacija nedoločnega člena v slovenščini. Annales 22/2: 461–470.
Breznik, Anton. 1916. Slovenska slovnica za srednje šole. Celovec: Družba sv. Mohorja.
Breznik, Anton. 1934. Slovenska slovnica za srednje šole. Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja.
Cazinkić, Robert. 2002. Oziralni odvisniki v sodobnem slovenskem knjižnem jeziku. MA thesis. 
Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press.
Farkas, Donka F., Sugioka, Yoko. 1983. Restrictive if/when clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 
6: 225–258.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6/3: 353–375. 
Gigafida 2.0: Korpus pisne standardne slovenščine. https://www.clarin.si/noske/run.cgi/
first_form?corpname=gfida20_dedup;align=
Gregorčič, Kristina. 2018. Affective polarity items in Slovene. MA thesis. Ljubljana: Filozofska 
fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani.
Gregorčič, Kristina. 2021. Pomenske lastnosti in značilnosti rabe slovenskih oziralnopoljubnostnih 
zaimkov. Slovenski jezik / Slovene Linguistic Studies 13: 61–84. https://doi.org/10.3986/
sjsls.13.1.04
Gregorčič, Kristina. 2023. Semantični in pragmatični vidiki k negativni polarnosti usmerjenih 
nedoločnih zaimkov. Dissertation. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani.
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole, J. L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and semantics 
3: speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.
Grosu, Alexander. 2004. The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh-constructions. In: O. 
M. Tomić (ed.). Balkan syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 405–438.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, Larry R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ilc, Gašper. 2019. Aspects of negation. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete 
Univerze v Ljubljani.
Janežič, Anton. 1863. Slovenska slovnica za domačo in šolsko rabo. Celovec: [Janez Leon].
Krek, Simon, Arhar Holdt, Špela, Čibej, Jaka, Repar, Andraž, Ljubešić, Nikola. 2019. Specifikacije 
izdelave korpusa Gigafida 2.0. https://www.cjvt.si/gigafida/wp-content/uploads/
sites/10/2019/06/Gigafida2.0_specifikacije.pdf (30 September 2023).
Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Outstanding 
dissertations in linguistics. New York: Garland Publications.
Liu, Mingya. 2010. Universal quantification and NPI licensing. In: M. Prinzhorn, V. Schmitt, S. 
Zobel (eds.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. 273–288. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.
de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/472 (10 June 2023).
Rawlins, Kyle. 2013. Conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 21/2: 111–178.
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Licensing of negative polarity items under inverse scope. Lingua 
105/3–4: 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00021-7
56 Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 16 (2024)
Toporišič, Jože. 2000. Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja.
Vidovič Muha, Ada. 2013. Slovensko leksikalno pomenoslovje. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba 
Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani.
Willis, David. 2013. Negation in the history of the Slavonic Languages. In: D. Willis, C. 
Lucas, A. Breitbarth (eds.). The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the 
Mediterranean. Volume I: Case studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 341–398.
Received August 2024, accepted September 2024.
Prispelo avgusta 2024, sprejeto septembra 2024.
summary
tHe use, meanIng and functIons of slovene bare pronouns
The paper presents selected aspects of the use and meaning of Slovene bare pronouns, 
identified through an extensive analysis of examples from the reference corpus Gi-
gafida 2.0. The corpus data confirm our hypothesis regarding the inaccuracy of the 
existing classification of bare pronouns according to their indefinite pronoun functions 
(Willis 2013: 394). In most examples from our samples, bare pronouns perform the 
irrealis non-specific function, revealing the speaker’s ignorance, which categorizes 
them as epistemic indefinite pronouns. They also perform the conditional, question, 
indirect negation and direct negation functions, typical of Negative Polarity Items. 
Their use in the scope of clausemate propositional negation seems to be restricted to 
modal existential wh-constructions, and to instances of the inverse scope of negation, 
stemming from the complexity of pronominal phrases.
The results of our analysis also show that the placement of nominal and adverbial 
bare pronouns in a clause is predictable. It primarily depends on the complexity of 
the pronominal phrase and the speaker’s communicative intentions. Bare pronouns 
in clause-initial or medial positions indicate referents whose identity is not crucial to 
the message, whereas bare pronouns in the final position either emphasize the small 
number of referents or are part of more complex phrases in which the bare pronoun 
is followed by a postmodifier.
raba, pomen In funKcIje poljubnostnIH zaImKov
Prispevek predstavlja izbrane vidike rabe in pomena poljubnostnih zaimkov, ki izha-
jajo iz obsežnejše analize zgledov iz korpusa Gigafida 2.0. Korpusno gradivo potrjuje 
izhodiščno hipotezo, da obstoječa opredelitev funkcij poljubnostnih zaimkov (Willis 
2013: 394) ni točna. Poljubnostni zaimki namreč v največ zgledih v preučevanih 
Kristina Gregorčič , The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns 57
vzorcih opravljajo funkcijo ‘nespecifični nanosnik v nestvarnih opisih’. V tej funkciji 
razkrivajo govorčevo nevednost, kar jih uvršča med epistemične nedoločne zaimke. 
Hkrati opravljajo funkcije ‘pogoj’, ‘vprašanje’, ‘posredno zanikanje’ in ‘neposredno 
zanikanje’, značilne za k negativni polarnosti usmerjene izraze. Korpusni podatki 
sicer kažejo, da se poljubnostni zaimki v neposrednem dosegu nikalnice ne pojavljajo 
prosto, temveč le v primeru rabe v modalnih strukturah z glagoloma imeti in biti ter ob 
pojavu obratnega dosega zanikanja, ki je posledica kompleksnosti zaimenske zveze.
Rezultati analize kažejo tudi predvidljivost stave samostalniških in prislovnih 
poljubnostnih zaimkov v stavku; ta je običajno odvisna od kompleksnosti zaimenske 
zveze in govorčevih sporočevalnih namenov. Na nekončnem mestu rabljeni poljubnostni 
zaimki označujejo nanosnike, katerih identiteta za sporočilo ni bistvena. Na končnem 
mestu rabljeni poljubnostni zaimki izpostavljajo maloštevilnost nanosnikov ali pa so 
del kompleksnejše besedne zveze, v kateri zaimku sledi desni prilastek.