1

Futures in Polish and Slovenian:

“a hole in a sock” theory

Joanna Błaszczak and

Dorota Klimek-Jankowska

2

Outline The issue Facts, observations Hypothesis New observations Our analysis Final conclusions

3

The issue Polish has two future forms:

a simple future form, and a periphrastic future form.

4

Two future forms in Polish simple future

(=SF): just a lexical verb,

no auxiliary zje

eat.prs.perf.3sg ( ‘He/she will eat.’)

periphrastic future (=PF)

a combination of the so-called “future auxiliary” BE and an imperfective lexical verb ( in form of an l-participle or an infinitive)

będzie jadł be.aux.3sg eat.prt.impf.sg.m

będzie jeść be.aux.3sg eat.inf.impf

( ‘He/she will eat.’)

5

Observation The same selectional restriction is observed

in other Slavic languages such as Russian, Czech, Slovak. Russian (Mezhevich 2006:22):

Vasja budet čitat’ knigu.Vasja be.3sg read.inf.impf book‘Vasja will be reading a/the book.’

The auxiliary BE + [impf] verbal complement seems to be a general pattern.

6

BUT: surprise surprise Slovenian:

Unlike in Polish, in Slovenian the l-participle in PF can be both [+impf] and [+perf].

bom napisalbe.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.perf.sg.m

bom pisal

be.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.impf.sg.m

7

Facts: summary Polish

two futures: simple future

SFlexical_verb.prs.perf periphrastic

future PFbe.aux +lexical_verb.prt.impf

orlexical_verb.inf.impf

Slovenian: two futures

periphrastic future PF

be.aux +lexical_verb.prt.perf periphrastic

future PFbe.aux +lexical_verb.prt.imp

f

8

Question Can we expect any

correspondence between the Polish and the Slovenian future forms?

If so, what would the nature of this correspondence be and how could it be accounted for?

9

A first intuitive answer At first glance, it seems that there

are no clear correspondences between those forms.

Why?

10

Observation The PF forms in Polish and

Slovenian have a similar morphological make-up.

BUT: They are different both diachronically and syntactically.

11

Diachronically different Evidence (following Whaley 2000):

The Slovenian bo+l-participle.impf/perf stems from the Old Slavic Future Perfect.

In contrast, the participial future in Polish is an innovative construction. rarely attested in the earliest Polish texts

The original future form in Polish was (and it is still preserved) the infinitival BE-future.

Recall:będzie jeść

be.aux.3sg eat.inf.impf ( ‘He/she will eat.’)

12

Syntactically different Evidence:

At first glance it might seem that there is no difference between the Polish PF and the Slovenian PF as negation precedes both bo and będzie.

PolishJan nie będzie pisał.Jan NEG be.aux

write.prt.impf.3sg.m Slovenian

Janez ne bo pisal.Janez NEG be.aux

write.prt.impf.sg.m ‘John will not write.’ (‘John will not be writing.’)

13

Syntactically different BUT: There is an important syntactic

difference between Polish and Slovenian. First, it is a standard assumption in Slavic

linguistics (Rivero 1991, Borsley&Rivero 1994) that there is a difference in the position of negation between Polish and Slovenian.

NegP > TP > VP Slovenian TP > NegP > VP Polish

Second, bo in Slovenian is a second position clitic (Franks&Holloway King 2000, Migdalski 2010).

14

Difference between BE in Polish and Slovenian as to its syntactic position: In Slovenian:

BE is higher in the syntactic tree ( in T°) In Polish:

BE is lower in the syntactic tree ( in some light vP-shell)

Syntactically different: Our assumptions

15

Consequences of different syntactic positions The BE-aux in Slovenian is a TP-

related functional element (“higher auxiliary”). Given its high position, it does not

have any influence on the selection of the aspectual form of the l-participle.

It can take both [+impf] and [+perf] verbal complements.

16

Consequences of different syntactic positions In contrast, będzie in Polish is a VP-

related element (“lower auxiliary”). Given its low position it can directly

select its verbal complement. It is compatible only with [+impf].

In this respect będzie shows a similar behavior to phase verbs like ‘begin’, which also only select [+impf] VP-complements (Veselovska 1995).

będzie pisać / * napisać be.aux.3.sg write.inf.impf / * write.inf.perf

‘(s)he will write’ ((s)he will be writing’) imperfective perfective

zacznie pisać / * napisać begin.3.sg write.inf.impf / *

write.inf.perf‘(s)he will begin to write’ imperfective perfective

17

Question Why is będzie compatible only with

[+impf] verbal complements?

18

Answer Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish

będzie is not completely devoid of a lexical content It denotes a state BE.

Denoting a state, będzie is compatible only with [+durative] eventualities. Hence only [+impf] VP-complements are

possible.

19

Prediction Only in Slovenian it should be

possible to use a second BE, spelling out the lower VP-part of the tree.

Why? Because the high BE-aux in T0 in

Slovenian is completely devoid of a lexical content.

bo + BE Slovenian będzie + BE Polish

20

Our prediction is corroborated.

Slovenian (due to Lanko Marušić)

bom bilbe.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m

‘I will be.’

Polish *będę był

be.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m

*będę być be.aux.1.sg be.inf

(intended: ‘I will be’)

bo + BE będzie + BE

21

Hypothesis Despite the above mentioned differences,

the semantic contrasts between BE-aux+l-participle.impf and BE-aux+l-participle.perf in Slovenian have their mirror image in the opposition between the PF and the SF in Polish. Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.impf Pol. PF Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.perf Pol. SF

Slov. BE+[impf] Pol. PFSlov. BE+[perf] Pol. SF

22

Hypothesis In short:

Slov. BE+[impf] / Pol. PF syntactically different semantically equivalent

Slov. BE+[perf] / Pol. SF syntactically different semantically equivalent

23

Common knowledge Obvious aspectual differences

between BE+[perf]/SF and BE+[impf]/PF: bounded BE+[perf]/SF vs. unbounded BE+[impf]/PF

24

Slovenian: Observation [bounded] (due to Lanko Marušić, p.c.)

Pismo bom napisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.perf.sg.m

v 3 ure /*3 ure. in 3 hours / *3 hours‘I’ll write the letter in three hours.’

Pismo bom pisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.imp.sg.m 3 ure / *v 3 ure.3 hours / *in 3 hours‘I’ll write the letter for three hours.’

bounded

unbounded

25

Polish: Observation Simple future:

O 5:00 wzejdzie słońce.

(≈ ‘The sun will rise at 5 a.m.’)

Periphrastic future: O 5:00 będzie

wschodziło/ będzie wschodzić słońce.

(≈ ‘The sun will rise at 5 a.m.’)

26

Simple future O 5:00 wzejdzie

słońce. ≈ ‘The sun will have risen at 5 a.m.’

O 5:00 wzejdzie już słońce. ≈ ‘The sun will already have risen at 5 a.m.’

27

Periphrastic future O 5:00 będzie

wschodziło słońce.

≈ ‘The sun will be rising at 5 a.m.’

O 5:00 będzie już wschodziło słońce.

‘The sun will already have risen at 5 a.m.’

(≈ ‘It is already at 5 a.m. that the sun will be rising.’)

28

New facts Even if there are contexts in which

both SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] are equally good, there are other contexts in which only

one future form, either SF/BE+[perf] or PF/BE+[impf],

is acceptable or at least strongly preferred.

29

SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] equally good

Contexts: prediction intention

30

Context: prediction SF and PF are

equally good Scenario:

Look at her face:Basia się zaraz rozpłacze.Basia zaraz będzie płakać.‘Basia is going to / will cry right now.’

32

SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] are NOT equally good

Contexts: warning offering I can‘t believe (= I am amazed

that ...) questions

33

Methodology A scenario-based online

questionnaire for Polish

www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnairePL

for Slovenian www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnaireSL

34

“Warning contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have

completely different interpretations.

35

“Warning contexts”: SF/BE+[perf]

Scenario: We see a blind man walking

towards a precipice. We see that he is just about to fall down. So we want to prevent this and warn the man.

Uwaga, spadniesz! (PL) Pazi, padel boš. (SL)

‘Be careful/Watch out: You are going to fall down (otherwise)!’’

warning – the hearer can still do something to prevent falling

36

“Warning contexts” watch out SF/BE+[perf] ok PF/BE+[impf] not

ok

37

“Warning contexts”: PF/BE+[impf]

Scenario: You are a parachuting

instructor. Your pupil is just about to jump. You want to signal this.

Uwaga, będziesz spadał! (PL)

Pazi, boš padal (SL)‘Caution: you are now beginning to fall down.’

announcement – the falling is prearranged

38

“Warning contexts” announcement PF/BE+[impf] ok SF/BE+[perf] not

ok

39

“Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009)

SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have completely different interpretations.

“Offering contexts” SF/BE+[perf] Scenario:

If you want, our company will repair your car.

Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma naprawi ci samochód. (PL)

Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravilo avto. (SL)

episodic reading

“Offering contexts” PF/BE+[impf] Scenario:

If you want, our company will repair your car.

#Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma będzie ci naprawiać samochód. (PL)

#Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravljalo avto. (SL)

implausible under an episodic reading; a kind of a habitual reading; a longer plan/agreement

42

“Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009)

SF / BE+[perf] ok

PF /BE+[impf]

not ok

Offering entails that the decision as to a future action has not been made yet and the hearer can still decide whether he or she wants the offer to be realized in the future.

PF/BE+[impf] is not suitable in offering

contexts since it presupposes that the future action is prearranged at the moment of speaking and the hearer has no say on the offered issue.

43

“I can‘t believe” (Copley 2002, 2009)

Two interpretations: literal meaning I can’t believe idiomatic meaning I can’t believe = I am

amazed that… SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have

completely different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf] only literal meaning, no

idiomatic meaning PF/BE+[impf] literal meaning + idiomatic

meaning

44

Idiomatic I can‘t believe PF/BE+[impf] Scenario:

Your boss has just asked your colleague John to organize a conference for 200 people. You think this decision is wrong because John is unexperienced and badly-organized. After coming back home you express your amazement to your wife.

Only PF/BE+[impf] can be used in this context.

45

Idiomatic I can‘t believe PF/BE+[impf] Ciągle jeszcze nie mogę

uwierzyć, że Janek będzie wykonywał tak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL)

Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janek opravljal tako odgovorno nalogo. (SL)‘I cannot believe that John will be performing such a responsible task.’

= ‘I am amazed that John will be performing such a responsible task.’

46

“I can‘t believe” contexts

SF/BE+[perf] only literal meaning, no idiomatic

meaning

Nie chce mi się wierzyć, że Janek wykona tak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL)

Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janek opravil tako odgovorno nalogo. (SL)‘I can’t believe (# ‘I am amazed) that John will fulfil/perform such a responsible task.’

47

Idiomatic I can‘t believe (Copley 2002, 2009)

PF/BE+[impf] ok SF/

BE+[perf] not ok

48

“Question contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have

different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf]: whether =

undetermined, who = undetermined PF/BE+[impf] whether =

determined, who = undetermined

49

“Question contexts” SF/BE+[perf]

Scenario: Your car has just broken down.

You need help so you ask your older brothers who of them would agree to help you repair the car. It is not predetermined whether any of them would agree to do this. So you actually ask whether a future action is going to take place and who will perform it.

Kto naprawi mi samochód? (PL)

Kdo mi bo popravil avto? (SL)‘Who will repair my car?’

50

“Question contexts”: who and whether = undetermined

SF/BE+[perf]

51

“Question contexts” PF/BE+[impf]

Scenario: Your car has broken down. You

take it to a car repair station. They agree to repair your car within a week. You are still curious which mechanic exactly will be repairing your car. In this context the future action is preplanned and you only want to know who will perform it.

Kto będzie mi naprawiał samochód? (PL)

Kdo mi bo popravljal avto? (SL)‘Who will be repairing my car?’

52

“Question contexts”: whether = determined, who = undetermined PF/BE+

[impf]

53

Contexts: Summary SF and BE +

[perf] okay in: Warning as caution Offering context I can‘t believe

(literal meaning) Questions: whether

= undetermined, who = undetermined

PF and BE + [impf] okay in: Warning as

announcement I can‘t believe = I

am amazed Questions:

whether = determined, who = undetermined

54

Contexts: Summary Conclusion:

PF/BE + [impf] but not SF / BE + [perf] is compatible with contexts in which the future action is settled at the moment of speaking.

Question Why are some

contexts compatible with SF (Pol.) / BE+ [perf] (Slov.)?

And why are some other contexts compatible with PF (Pol.) / BE+[impf] (Slov.)?- warning as caution

- offering- questions (whether + who = undetermined)

- warning as announcement- idiomatic I can‘t believe (= I am amazed that ...)- questions (whether = determined, who = undetermined)

56

Question Why do we have the semantic

correspondence between the Polish and Slovenian future forms despite their different composition?

SF (Pol.) BE + [perf] (Slov.)PF (Pol.) BE + [impf] (Slov.)

57

Observation Offering and warning presuppose

that it should be possible to change or to prevent a future eventuality, hence such events cannot be settled or

prearranged at the moment of speaking. In contrast, one can only be amazed

by something which is already settled (prearranged) at the

moment of speaking.

58

Hypothesis In order to be able to change or to

prevent a future eventuality, there must be time between the moment of speaking and the beginning of an event: this is our “hole in a sock” theory.

59

Hypothesis Since only the SF in Polish and BE-

aux + l-participle.[perf] in Slovenian are good in ‘warning’ and ‘offering’ contexts,

we expect to find “a hole” in these future forms.

60

Question How is this hole obtained

compositionally in these two future constructions,

especially since the SF in Polish is syntactically different from BE-aux + l-participle.[perf] in Slovenian?

61

Our analysis: BE+[perf] (Slov.)

The Slovenian bo – being a TP-related auxiliary – has a purely temporal function of locating the reference time right after the speech time. R1T ST

Perfective marked on the l-participle further forward-shifts the reference time and situates the event time within the reference time. R1T < R2T

& ET R2T

Perfective aspect alone is sufficient to forward-shift RT

Compare the following modal contexts in Polish: Muszę            czytać           książkę.  

must.prs.1sg  read.inf.impf   book ‘I have an obligation to read a book.’ ( now)

Muszę   przeczytać   książkę. must.prs.1sg   read.inf.perf    book‘I have an obligation to read a book.’ ( tomorrow)

In both cases, the modal element must is marked for the present tense but only the second context can mean that I have an obligation to read a book tomorrow

because perfective aspect on the verb forward-shifts RT and situates ET within RT.

63

BE+[perf] (Slov.): composition

TP [“AspP” + “VP”]

bo perfectiveReference time Event is properly after speech time included in the the reference timeR1T ST R1T< R2T & ET R2T

BE+[perf] (Slov.) - GAP

64

GAP between ST and the boundary of an event

65

Our analysis: SF (Pol.) A similar temporal gap is obtained in

Polish in the SF form in which there is no TP-related BE-aux.

The SF form is a combination of present tense and perfective aspect.

zjeeat.prs.perf.3sg‘S/he will eat.’

present tense + perfective aspect

66

Our analysis: SF (Pol.) What is the role of these components?

Present tense locates the reference time around the speech time.

ST R1T Due to the presence of the perfective aspect

the R2T is forward-shifted from “around the ST” (ST R1T) to “after the ST” (R1T < R2T) and the temporal trace of an event is situated within the forward-shifted reference time (ET R2T).

67

SF (Pol.): composition

TP [“AspP” + “VP”]

Moment of speech present perfective forward-shifting

of the reference timeST R1T R1T < R2T & ET R2T

68

SF (Pol.) - GAP

GAP between ST and the boundary of an event

69

Intermediate conclusion In contexts in which there is no

plan, in which we want to prevent or to change a future event, a gap is necessary.

We find SF (Pol.) / BE + [perf] (Slov.) in those contexts.

And those contexts have a gap.

70

Hypothesis In contrast, both BE-aux+l-

participle.impf in Slovenian and the PF in Polish can be used to express prearranged events.

Hence we expect that these future forms do not have any temporal gap: “no hole in a sock”.

71

Question Why is there no gap in these

forms? How can this lack of gap be

obtained compositionally?

72

Our analysis: BE+[impf] (Slov.) As in the previous case, the temporal

auxiliary bo in Slovenian situates the reference time right after the speech time. R1T ST

The tenseless imperfective l-participle locates the event time around the reference time R1T ET. Hence there is no temporal gap (in a default

case) between the speech time and the event time.

73

BE+[impf](Slov.): composition

TP [“AspP” + “VP”]

bo imperfectiveReference time Reference timeafter speech time is properly included in the running time

of the eventR1T ST R1T ET

74

No gap in Slovenian BE+[impf]

NO GAP between ST and the boundary of an event

75

Our analysis: PF (Pol.) A similar situation arises in the Polish

PF form despite its different syntactic make-up.

Recall: PF = będzie + [impf]-complement

What is będzie?

76

Assumptions wrt będzie Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish

będzie is not completely devoid of a lexical content: It denotes a state BE.

Morphologically and diachronically, będzie is a perfective present tense form of BE (van Schooneveld 1951).

Evidence: diachronic aspectual opposition

77

Evidence Diachronic facts:

Będzie originates from the perfective present tense paradigm of the Old Church Slavonic verb byti ‘to be’ (van Schooneveld 1951).

78

Old Church Slavonic byti ‘to be’ (van Schooneveld 1951)

impf perf

sing pl dual

sing pl dual

1st jesmЬ

jesmЪ

jesvě

bǫdǫ bǫdemЪ

bǫdevě

2nd jesi jeste jesta

bǫdeši

bǫdete bǫdeta

3rd jestЪ sǫtЪ jeste

bǫdetЪ

bǫdǫtЪ bǫdete

79

Evidence Aspectual opposition:

Polish verbs demonstrate a regular perfective-imperfective morphological opposition:

verb [imperfective] vs. verb [perfective]

Given this, it can be argued that this morphological aspectual opposition is also demonstrated in the case of BE:

jest [imperfective] vs. będzie [perfective]

80

Aspectual opposition Imperfective

pisze write.prs.impf.3sg ‘s/he writes / s/he is writing’

BUT NOT:*‘s/he will write’

Perfective napisze write.prs.perf.3sg ‘s/he will write’

BUT NOT:* ‘s/he writes / s/he is writing’

Aspectual opposition Imperfective

jest be.prs.impf.3sg ‘s/he is’

BUT NOT:*‘s/he will be’

Perfective będzie be.prs.perf.3sg ‘s/he will be’

BUT NOT:*‘s/he is’

82

Our analysis: PF (Pol.) Decomposing periphrastic future:

będzie + jadł /jeść be.prs.perf.3sg +

eat.prt.impf.sg.m/eat.inf.impf

Combination of: BE= present tense + perfective+ l-participle/infinitive = imperfective

83

Question What is the role

of będzie ? be.prs.perf

What is the role of l-participle/infinitive? lexical_verb.impf

84

The role of będzie Będzie is:

semi-functional + semi-lexical a kind of “light v”

Semi-lexical it introduces a state BE. Semi-functional being a perfective present

tense form, it forward-shifts the reference time and locates it after the speech time (R1T≥ST).

Consequently, the beginning of the state

denoted by BE coincides with the beginning of the forward-shifted reference time R1T.

The role of będzie - scheme

85

86

The role of l-participle/infinitive

l-participle/infinitive is: a purely lexical verb imperfective aspect

Being imperfective, it denotes an unbounded [+durative] eventuality which complements a state BE introduced by będzie.

No gap in Polish PF The state BE and the [+durative]

eventuality form a unit (a complex durative eventuality) which is coextensive with the reference time R1T, which is by default situated right after ST (R1T≥ST). by default means here ‘in the absence of

adverbial restrictors such as, e.g., tomorrow’.

88

No gap in Polish PF

NO GAP between ST and the boundary of [a state BE + a durative eventuality]

89

PF (Pol.): composition TP [“AspP” + “VP”]

będzieMoment of speech present perfective

forward-shifting of the reference timeRT ST R1T≥ST

lexical semi-lexical [+durative] complement

  state BE of state BE (states/processes)

[imperfective] morphology The temporal trace of [a state BE + a durative eventuality] is coextensive with R1T

90

Intermediate conclusion We find PF (Pol.) / BE + [impf] (Slov.)

in preplanned/prearranged contexts. In these forms in a default case (i.e., if

there is no adverbial restriction like tomorrow) we will have no gap.

Given this, these forms are more compatible with situations in which the durative event is a continuation of a plan.

91

Prediction If our analysis is correct, then only

those future forms in Polish and in Slovenian which have no temporal gap between the speech time and the event time, i.e., only the PF in Polish and only the BE-aux+l-participle.impf in Slovenian, should be compatible with a ‘still’ context.

In short PF (Pol.) /

BE + [impf] (Slov.)

in ‘still’-contexts

SF (Pol.) / BE + [perf] (Slov.)

in ‘still’-contexts

93

Our prediction is borne out. PF ok Janek czyta gazetę i nadal

będzie ją czytał.‘John is reading a newspaper and he will still be reading it.’

SF not ok *Janek czyta gazetę i nadal

ją przeczyta.‘*John is reading a newspaper and he will still have read it.’

94

Our prediction is borne out. BE + [impf] ok Jan bere knjigo. On

bo še vedno bral knjigo.‘John is reading a newspaper and he will still be reading it.’

BE + [perf] not ok

Jan bere knjigo. *On bo še vedno prebral knjigo. ‘*John is reading a newspaper and he will still have read it.’

95

Final conclusion There are two future forms in Polish

and Slovenian. Despite syntactic (and diachronic)

differences, we observe a semantic equivalence: Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.impf Pol.

PF Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.perf Pol.

SF

96

Final conclusion

In PF/BE+[impf] there is no gap between the moment of speaking and the beginning of the durative eventuality. Hence PF/BE+[impf] is compatible with the

contexts in which the future event is already settled/determined at the moment of speaking.

97

Final conclusion

In SF/BE+[perf] there is a gap between the moment of speaking and the (initial or final) boundary of an event. Hence SF/BE+[perf] is compatible with the

contexts in which we want to have time to prevent, change or decide on a future event.

98

Thank you!

99

References Borsley, R. D. and M.-L. Rivero. (1994). Clitic

Auxiliaries and Incorporation in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, pp. 373-422.

Copley, B. (2002). The Semantics of the Future. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. To appear in Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, Routledge.

Copley, B. (2009). The Semantics of the Future. Routledge, New York.

Franks, S. and T. Holloway King. (2000). A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford University Press, New York.

100

References Mezhevich, I. (2006). Featuring Russian Tense: A

Feature-Theoretic Account of the Russian Tense System. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Calgary.

Mezhevich, I. (2008). A Feature-Theoretic Account of Tense and Aspect in Russian. Natural Laguage and Linguistic Theory 26, 359-401.

Migdalski, K. (2010). On the Loss of Tense and Verb-Adjacent Clitics in Slavic. Paper presented at the DiGS XII, Cambridge University, July 14-16, 2010.

Rivero, M.-L. (1991). Long Head Movement and Negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8, pp. 319-351.

101

References Schooneveld, van C.H. (1951). The Aspect

System of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum byti. Word 7/2, pp. 96-103.

Veselovska, L. 1995. Phrasal Movement and X0-Morphology. Word Order Parallels in Czech and English Nominal and Verbal Projections. Ph. D. Thesis, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic.

Whaley, M. L. (2000). The Evolution of the Slavic ‘BE(COME)’-Type Compound Future. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University.

102

This research has been supported by the Foundation for Polish Science

(Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej), programme FOCUS.