Home When shields and distances are key: a corpus-based study of Slovene bare pronouns in negated clauses
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

When shields and distances are key: a corpus-based study of Slovene bare pronouns in negated clauses

  • Kristina Gregorčič ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: March 13, 2025
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory
From the journal Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Abstract

In some strict Negative Concord (NC) languages, Negative Concord Items (NCIs) can be freely used in negated clauses, while pronominal Polarity Sensitive Items (PSIs) are blocked. Despite being a strict NC language, Slovene does not exhibit such blocking. This raises the question of why there is more than one pronoun group suitable for use in negated clauses. We seek to provide an answer to this question by offering a comprehensive analysis of the data from the reference corpus Gigafida 2.0. We focus on the scopal interaction between Slovene bare PSI pronouns and different types of clausemate negation, showing that bare pronouns either outscope propositional negation or appear in its scope with the help of “shielding” positive implicatures. Unmodified bare pronouns commonly occur in the scope of presuppositional negation, which is syntactically more distant from them than propositional negation and highlights the contextual activation of the embedded proposition. The pragmatic markedness exhibited by bare pronouns in the scope of negation is expected, as such use is much less prominent in the paradigm of negated clauses.

Keywords: Polarity Sensitive Items; indefinite pronouns; negation; Bagel Problem; scope; pragmatic inferences
Corresponding author: Kristina Gregorčič, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of English, Aškerčeva 2, Ljubljana, SI-1000, Slovenia, E-mail:

Funding source: Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS

Award Identifier / Grant number: P6-0218

Appendix

The corpus examples below present typical syntactic-semantic environments of Slovene bare pronouns identified in the course of our investigation. Examples (1–3) feature propositional negation, whereas examples (4–8) contain non-propositional (i.e., presuppositional, high and expletive) negation.

1 Concordances with propositional negation

1.1 Postmodified bare pronouns in the scope of negation

(1)
a.
Davčna reforma nam verjetno
tax.adj reform we.dat probably
ne bo prinesla kaj dobrega.
neg aux.3sg.fut bring.ptcp psi.thing.acc good
‘The tax reform will probably not bring us anything good.’
b.
K sreči se prehlad ni razvil v kaj hujšega.
to luck refl cold neg.aux.3sg develop.ptcp in psi.thing.acc worse
‘Luckily, the cold did not develop into anything worse.’
c.
Zdravnik mi je rekel,
doctor I.dat aux.3sg say.ptcp
da česa takega še ni doživel.
that psi.thing.gen like.this yet neg.aux.3sg experience.ptcp
‘The doctor told me he had never experienced anything like this.’
d.
S papežem se ne boste srečali.
with Pope refl neg aux.2pl.fut meet.ptcp
Tudi s kom drugim ne.
also with psi.person.ins else neg
‘You will not meet the Pope. Nor will you meet anyone else.’
e.
Na kaj takšnega nismo nikoli pomislile.
on psi.thing.acc like.this neg.aux.1pl nci.time think.ptcp
‘We have never thought of anything like this.’

1.2 Unmodified bare pronouns outside the scope of negation

(2)
a.
Če vam kaj ni jasno,
if you.dat psi.thing.nom neg.be.3sg.prs clear
se pred nakupom posvetujte s strokovnjakom.
refl before purchase consult.2pl.imp with expert
‘If there is something or other you are unsure about, consult an expert before the purchase.’
b.
Kadar koga ne razumete, poglejte v svoje srce.
when psi.person.gen neg understand.2pl.prs look.2pl.imp in your.refl heart
‘When there is someone or other you do not understand, look into your heart.’
c.
Vedno so ljudje, ki jim kaj ni všeč.
always be.3pl.prs people rel they.dat psi.thing.nom neg.be.3sg.prs agreeable
‘There are always people who have something or other they do not like.’
d.
Ker z odločitvijo kdo zagotovo ne bo zadovoljen,
because with decision psi.person.nom definitely neg be.3sg.fut happy
bo do začetka sojenja preteklo še nekaj vode.
aux.3sg.fut until beginning trial flow.ptcp also some water
‘Since someone or other will definitely not be happy with the decision, it will be some time before the trial begins.’
e.
Včasih česa ne boste razumeli, a nič zato!
sometimes psi.thing.gen neg aux.2pl.fut understand.ptcp but nothing therefore
‘Sometimes there will be something or other you will not understand, but never mind!’

1.3 Unmodified bare pronouns in the scope of negation, in modal existential wh-constructions

(3)
a.
Mislim, da se nimamo česa sramovati.
think.1sg.prs that refl neg.have.1pl.prs psi.thing.gen be.ashamed.inf
‘I think we don’t have anything to be ashamed of.’
b.
Če bodo iz poraza znali izluščiti pozitivne stvari,
if aux.3pl.fut out.of defeat know.ptcp extract.inf positive things
se nimajo česa bati.
refl neg.have.3pl.prs psi.thing.gen fear.inf
‘If they can find positive things in their defeat, they don’t have anything to fear.’
c.
Igralcem nimam česa zameriti, trudili so se.
players.dat neg.have.1sg.prs psi.thing.gen blame.inf try.ptcp aux.3pl refl
‘I don’t have anything to blame the players for, they did their best.’
d.
Na vasi ni bilo več kaj početi.
on village neg.aux.3sg be.ptcp anymore psi.thing.acc do.inf
‘There wasn’t anything left to do in the countryside.’
e.
Lep zaslon ne pomaga,
nice screen neg help.3sg.prs
če na njem ni česa prikazati.
if on he.loc neg.be.3sg psi.thing.gen show.inf
‘A nice screen does not help if there isn’t anything to show on it.’

2 Concordances with non-propositional negation

2.1 Bare pronouns in the scope of presuppositional negation

2.1.1 In subordinate clauses describing unwanted, but viable scenarios
(4)
a.
Pozor, da ne bo komu prehitro spodrsnilo.
attention that neg aux.3sg.fut psi.person.dat too.quickly slip.ptcp
‘Beware, lest someone or other slips up too quickly.’
b.
Da odpadajoči kosi ometa ne bi koga ranili,
that falling pieces plaster neg cond psi.person.gen injure.ptcp
so postavili zaščitne odre.
aux.3pl erect.ptcp protective scaffolding
‘They erected protective scaffolding lest falling pieces of plaster injure someone or other.’
c.
Če ne bomo kaj ukrenili,
if neg aux.1pl.fut psi.thing.acc do.ptcp
nam bodo pokrovitelji obrnili hrbet.
we.dat aux.3pl.fut sponsors turn.ptcp back
‘If we do not do something or other, our sponsors will turn their backs on us.’
d.
Zdaj lahko le moliva,
now easily only pray.1du.prs
da ji ne bo kdo povedal.
that she.dat neg aux.3sg.fut psi.person.nom tell.ptcp
‘Now we can only pray that it does not happen that someone or other tells her.’
e.
Srečo je imel,
luck aux.3sg have.ptcp
da ga ni kdo povozil.
that he.gen neg.aux.3sg psi.person.nom run.over.ptcp
‘He was lucky not to have been run over by someone or other.’
2.1.2 In idiomatic double negation structures
(5)
a.
Skoraj ne mine dan, da ne bi kdo vložil
almost neg pass.3sg.prs day that neg cond psi.person.nom file.ptcp
tožbe proti psu, ki ga je ugriznil.
lawsuit against dog rel he.acc aux.3sg bite.ptcp
‘Hardly a day goes by without someone or other filing a lawsuit against the dog that bit them.’
b.
Skoraj ni bilo popoldneva,
almost neg.aux.3sg be.ptcp afternoon
ko se ne bi kaj dogajalo.
when refl neg cond psi.thing.nom happen.ptcp
‘There was hardly an afternoon when there was not something or other going on.’
c.
Skoraj ga ni človeka,
almost he.gen neg.aux.3sg person
ki ne bi česa kupoval ali prodajal.
rel neg cond psi.thing.gen buy.ptcp or sell.ptcp
‘There is hardly a person who is not buying or selling something or other.’
d.
Nismo prepričani, da kdo ne prisluškuje.
neg.be.1pl.prs sure that psi.person.nom neg listen.in.3sg.prs
‘We are not sure that it is not the case that someone or other is listening in.’
e.
V občini ni vasi,
in municipality neg.be.3sg.prs village
iz katere ne bi bil kdo interniran ali umorjen.
from which neg cond be.ptcp psi.person.nom interned or murdered
‘There is not a village in the municipality where it is not the case that someone or other has been interned or murdered.’
2.1.3 In correction structures suggesting denial
(6)
a.
Če sta res samo soseda in ne kaj več,
if be.3du.prs really only neighbours and neg psi.thing.nom more
pa presodite sami.
but judge.2pl.imp alone
‘You be the judge if they are really just neighbours and not something or other more.’
b.
Moja knjiga esejev je literatura in ne kaj drugega.
my book essays be.3sg.prs literature and neg psi.thing.nom else
‘My book of essays is literature, not something or other else.’
c.
Zakaj ravno jaz ležim tukaj in ne kdo drug?
why exactly I.nom lie.1sg.prs here and neg psi.person.nom else
‘Why am I lying here and not someone or other else?’
d.
Bil sem v hiši, to priznam.
be.ptcp aux.1sg in house this admit.1sg.prs
Hotel sem krasti, ne pa koga ubiti.
want.ptcp aux.1sg steal.inf neg but psi.person.gen kill.inf
‘I was in the house, I admit it. I wanted to steal, not to kill someone or other.’
e.
Društvo ima namen ohranjati kulturno dediščino, ne pa
association have.3sg.prs aim preserve.inf cultural heritage neg but
kaj drugega, kot namigujejo nekateri.
psi.thing.acc else as insinuate.3pl.prs some
‘The purpose of the association is to preserve cultural heritage, not something or other else, as some are insinuating.’

2.2 Bare pronouns in the scope of high negation in questions

(7)
a.
Ozrl se je naokrog, kot da bi hotel preveriti,
look.ptcp refl aux.3sg around as that cond want.ptcp check.inf
ali mu kdo ne prisluškuje.
q he.dat psi.person.nom neg listen.in.3sg.prs
‘He looked around as if to check whether someone or other was listening in.’
b.
Vprašanje je, ali se ne bo kaj zapletlo
question be.3sg.prs q refl neg aux.3sg.fut psi.thing.nom complicate.ptcp
pri izbiri ponudnika; dobro se spomnijo lanskih zapletov.
by choice provider well refl remember.3pl.prs last.year.adj complications
‘The question is whether there will be any complications in the choice of the provider; they remember well the complications from last year.’
c.
Kdove, ali ni grofica že česa posumila.
who.knows q neg.aux.3sg countess already psi.thing.gen suspect.ptcp
‘Who knows whether the countess has already suspected something or other.’
d.
Zakaj raje ne vprašate kaj pomembnega?
why rather neg ask.2pl.prs psi.thing.acc important
‘Why don’t you ask something or other important instead?’
e.
Zakaj ne poskusite kaj napisati?
why neg try.2pl.prs psi.thing.acc write.inf
‘Why don’t you try to write something or other?’

2.3 Bare pronouns in the scope of expletive negation

(8)
a.
V strahu, da ji ne bi kaj naredil, je prosila
in fear that she.dat neg cond psi.thing.acc do.ptcp aux.3sg ask.ptcp
sodelavko, naj jo pospremi do doma.
colleague ptcl she.acc accompany.3sg.prs to home
‘Fearing that he would do something or other to her, she asked a colleague to walk her home.’
b.
Tudi ona je trepetala,
also she.nom aux.3sg tremble.ptcp
da nas ne bi kdo opazil.
that we.acc neg cond psi.person.nom notice.ptcp
‘She, too, was afraid that someone or other would notice us.’
c.
Ponavadi smo imeli mir,
usually aux.1pl have.ptcp peace
razen če ni kdo zganjal kravala.
except if neg.aux.3sg psi.person.nom make.ptcp fuss
‘We usually had a peaceful time, unless someone or other was making a fuss.’
d.
Pojdi v hišo, preden se ti kaj ne zgodi.
go.2sg.imp in house before refl you.dat psi.thing.nom neg happen.3sg.prs
‘Get in the house before something or other happens to you.’
e.
Boris je bil dober človek, toda le do takrat,
Boris aux.3sg be.ptcp good person but only to then
ko ni kaj spil.
when neg.aux.3sg psi.thing.acc drink.ptcp
‘Boris was a good man, but only until he had something or other to drink.’

  1. Research funding: The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (research core funding No. P6-0218).

References

Abels, Klaus. 2005. “Expletive negation” in Russian: A conspiracy theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 13(1). 5–74.Search in Google Scholar

Alonso-Ovalle, Luis & Paula Menéndez-Benito. 2010. Modal indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 18. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9048-4.Search in Google Scholar

Błaszczak, Joanna. 2008. The puzzle of kolwiek-pronouns in Polish. In Jacques Jayez & Lucia M. Tovena (eds.), Free choice: Facts, models and problems. European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI), Vol. 20, 3–12.Search in Google Scholar

Breznik, Anton. 1908. Besedni red v govoru [Word order in speech]. Dom in svet 21(5). 222–230. 258–267.Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 1996. Focus, pragmatic presupposition, and activated propositions. Journal of Pragmatics 26(4). 475–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00059-3.Search in Google Scholar

Etxeberria, Urtzi, M. Teresa Espinal & Susagna Tubau. 2024. Establishing the limits between polarity sensitivity, negative polarity and negative concord. Linguistic Typology 28(2). 331–366. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0083.Search in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.23Search in Google Scholar

Goodhue, Daniel. 2019. High negation questions and epistemic bias. Sinn und Bedeutung 23(1). 469–486. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2019.v23i1.544.Search in Google Scholar

Gregorčič, Kristina. 2018. Affective polarity items in Slovene. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Gregorčič, Kristina. 2023. Semantični in pragmatični vidiki k negativni polarnosti usmerjenih nedoločnih zaimkov [Semantic and pragmatic aspects of negative polarity indefinite pronouns]. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Gregorčič, Kristina. 2024. The use, meaning and functions of Slovene bare pronouns. Slovenski jezik/Slovene Linguistic Studies 16. 27–57. https://doi.org/10.3986/16.1.02.Search in Google Scholar

Gregorčič, Kristina, Gašper Ilc & Jakob Lenardič. 2024. Negation and negative concord in Slovenian. In Gréte Dalmi, Jacek Witkoś & Piotr Cegłowski (eds.), Strict negative concord in Slavic and Finno-Ugric: Structure, licensing, and locality conditions for negative expressions, 139–185. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110754834-005Search in Google Scholar

Grosu, Alexander. 2004. The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh-constructions. In Olga M. Tomić (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 405–438. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.67.21groSearch in Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. Explorations in the left periphery: The expression of polarity emphasis. Paper presented at EALING 2010, École normale supérieure, September 2010.Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3). 515–540. https://doi.org/10.2307/414448.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Homer, Vincent. 2021. Domains of polarity items. Journal of Semantics 38(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffaa006.Search in Google Scholar

Horn, Larry R. 1985. Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Language 61(1). 121–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/413423.Search in Google Scholar

Horn, Larry R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ilc, Gašper. 2019. Aspects of negation in English and Slovenian. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete.Search in Google Scholar

Krek, Simon, Tomaž Erjavec, Andraž Repar, Jaka Čibej, Špela Arhar Holdt, Polona Gantar, Iztok Kosem, Marko Robnik-Šikonja, Nikola Ljubešić, Kaja Dobrovoljc, Cyprian Laskowski, Miha Grčar, Peter Holozan, Simon Šuster, Vojko Gorjanc, Marko Stabej & Logar Nataša. 2019. Corpus of written standard Slovene Gigafida 2.0. Slovenian language resource repository CLARIN SI. http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1320 (accessed 26 August 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Ladd, Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Roberta A. Hendrick, Carrie S. Masek & Mary F. Miller (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), Vol. 17, 164–171.Search in Google Scholar

Ladusaw, William. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. New York: Garland Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Larrivée, Pierre. 2012. Positive polarity items, negation, activated propositions. Linguistics 50(4). 869–900. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2012-0027.Search in Google Scholar

Larrivée, Pierre. 2014. The syntax of pragmatics: The case of presuppositional negatives. Syntaxe et sémantique 15(1). 115–137. https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.015.0115.Search in Google Scholar

Larrivée, Pierre. 2018. Metalinguistic negation from an informational perspective. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 3(1/56). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.403.Search in Google Scholar

Moeschler, Jacques. 2018. A set of semantic and pragmatic criteria for descriptive vs. metalinguistic negation. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 3(1/58). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.439.Search in Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2006. Negative polarity items in Russian and the Bagel Problem. In Adam Przepiorkowski & Sue Brown (eds.), Negation in Slavic, 153–178. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Repp, Sophie. 2009. Negation in gapping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199543601.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Seeliger, Heiko & Sophie Repp. 2018. Biased declarative questions in Swedish and German. In Christine Dimroth & Stefan Sudhoff (eds.), The grammatical realization of polarity contrast: Theoretical, empirical, and typological approaches, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, Vol. 249, 129–172. John Benjamins.10.1075/la.249.05seeSearch in Google Scholar

Šimík, Radek. 2008. On a non-canonical polarity sensitive wh-item in Czech. In Jacques Jayez & Lucia M. Tovena (eds.), Free choice: Facts, models and problems. European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (ESSLLI), Vol. 20, 35–42.Search in Google Scholar

Swart, Henriëtte de. 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.Search in Google Scholar

Toporišič, Jože. 1976. Besedni red v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku [Word order in Standard Slovene]. Slavistična revija 15(1–2). 251–274.Search in Google Scholar

Toporišič, Jože. 2000. Slovenska slovnica [Slovene grammar]. Maribor: Obzorja.Search in Google Scholar

Weiß, Helmut. 2002. Three types of negation: A case study in Bavarian. In Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Sanne van der Kleij (eds.), Syntactic microvariation, Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in Linguistics (MIEPiL), Vol. II, 305–332. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Search in Google Scholar

Willis, David. 2013. Negation in the history of the Slavonic languages. In David Willis, Christopher Lucas & Anne Breitbarth (eds.), The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, volume I: Case studies, 341–398. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602537.003.0009Search in Google Scholar

Wouden, Ton van der. 1997. Negative contexts. Collocation, polarity, and multiple negation. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, Suwon. 2011. ‘Not’ in the mood: The syntax, semantics and pragmatics of evaluative negation. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195080544.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Žele, Andreja. 2018. O aktualnostnočlenitveni stavi v slovenščini [Slovenian word order from the viewpoint of functional sentence perspective]. Jezik in slovstvo 63(2–3). 59–73. https://doi.org/10.4312/jis.63.2-3.59-73.Search in Google Scholar

Zovko Dinković, Irena & Gašper Ilc. 2017. Pleonastic negation from a cross-linguistic perspective. Jezikoslovlje 18(1). 159–180.Search in Google Scholar

Zwarts, Frans. 1998. Three types of polarity. In Fritz Hamm & Erhard Hinrichs (eds.), Plurality and quantification, 177–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-2706-8_5Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-09-22
Accepted: 2025-01-21
Published Online: 2025-03-13

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2024-0100
Keywords for this article
Polarity Sensitive Items; indefinite pronouns; negation; Bagel Problem; scope; pragmatic inferences
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 22.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cllt-2024-0100/html
Scroll to top button