DIFFERENCES IN THE FORMALIZATION OF THE SEMANTIC CATEGORY OF DEFINITENESS / INDEFINITENESS

Basing on theoretical contrastive studies guidelines, the article defines the semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness where two basic opposition meanings are being ascribed to. It also distinguishes crucial sub-meanings for this category. The category established like this constitutes a characteristic interlanguage typical of theoretical contrastive studies, which is here used as tertium comparationis for demonstrating the formal differences between Polish, Lithuanian and dialectal exponents to express particular sub/meanings. The differences demonstrated in the article are to confirm a different degree of the formalization of the category in each of the natural codes compared here. The idea of taking the local dialect of Puńsk into consideration results from a clearly visible influence of Polish and Lithuanian on the traditional dialectal system. In consequence, the dialectal system of exponents to express the meanings within the semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness keeps a high degree of the traditional exponents specialization on one hand, but on the other hand, a low degree of specialization is being ascribed to some forms borrowed from Lithuanian (as a consequence of the Polish language influence), which results from the bilingualism of the Lithuanians living in Poland.

1. Introduction 1.1.The article accepts all guidelines for theoretical contrastive studies (see that by Roszko, D. & Roszko, R. to appear), on the basis of which the semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness has been defined.The category established like this constitutes the content of the interlanguage, being tertium comparationis in the comparison of the three natural codes: Polish, Lithuanian and the local dialect of Puńsk in Poland.It is assumed that the differences resulting from the comparison are to be observed on the formal grounds of the three codes/languages.
1.2.On the basis of traditional grammars, it is obvious that the morphological category of definiteness/indefiniteness has been developed in the Lithuanian language.The category is based on the opposition of the simple and compound forms of qualitative adjectives, participles (and so-called participle-like formsterm used in the academic grammar of Lithuanian).About limitations of using the category, see the study by Roszko, D. & Roszko R. to appear.The Polish language, like the majority of Slavic languages, has not developed the morphological category of definiteness/indefiniteness.The Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk in Poland is in vestigial form of the morphological category of definiteness/indefiniteness (see Macukonienė, Markevičienė 2006).As in the Lithuanian language, it is based on the opposition of the simple and compound forms of adjectives.
1.3.Taking the Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk into consideration can be somewhat surprising.However, it is not accidental.In Poland, near the Polish-Lithuanian border, there live Lithuanians, who speak Lithuanian on an every-day basis.Till 1795, the regions of Puńsk were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.After the third partition of Poland, they appeared within the borders of Prussia and Russia, respectively.After Poland regained its independence, they appeared within its borders.
From the linguistic analysis point of view, the lands occupied by the Lithuanian population have been for ages the meeting of many ethnic and linguistic borderlines.Just here runs the border between Balts and Slavs, also here runs the internal border between the eastern and the western groups of Slavs.Moreover, diversification of dialect can be witnessed in this rather little Lithuanian linguistic area in Poland.The Kapsu˛dialect (kapsu ˛tarmė in Lithuanian) and the territorially predominating Dzūku˛dialect (dzūku ˛tarmė in Lithuanian) keep the dialectal continuity with the country of Lithuania.Moreover, in the area of the Dzūku˛dialect, two local dialects are to be distinguished: one of Puńsk and the other of Seinai.
Still, for a long period of time after the second world war, the Puńsk Lithuanians used exclusively a local dialect.Knowledge of the literary form of the Lithuanian language was rather rare.Similarly, knowledge of the literary form of the Polish language was not an obvious fact amongst the Puńsk Lithuanians.The changes that took place during the last decades resulted in the present Puńsk Lithuanians (particularly middle-aged and young generations) having a good command of the literary forms of both Polish and Lithuanian.This fact particularly concerns the population of secondary and higher education.The old generation to be found there still uses the local dialect.Whereas, the Polish spoken by them strongly reflects the features of the Polish local dialects.It can be also distinguished by certain East-Slavic linguistic influences.

Semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness
In the second volume of Bulgarian-Polish Contrastive Grammar (Koseska, Gargov 1990, see also Koseska herein) there has been defined the interlanguage of semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness.The category is based on the quantification theory.The unique quantification meanings put into the opposition to universal and existential meanings created the categorical opposition of definiteness to indefiniteness.In Koseska, Gargov 1990, the meanings of the uniqueness of the element and the uniqueness of the set form the definiteness.Whereas, the indefiniteness (or non-uniqueness) is formed by the meanings of existentiality and universality.The category of definiteness/indefiniteness has been recognized as the sentence category, scope-embracing both nominal and verbal phrases.For more information see Koseska, Gargov 1990, Koseska herein).For the purposes of the Polish-Lithuanian confrontation, the structure of the semantic category of definiteness/indefiniteness has been developed (see Roszko, R. 2004).Basing on the feature of gradation, new sub-meanings have been distinguished [a] existentiality: uniqueness presupposing existentiality and proper existentiality; [b] universality: habitual universality and proper universality.Moreover, the notions of the unambiguous exponents and the ambiguous exponents of the quantification meaning have been put into life.This last element of the category was singled out for the sake of the natural language computer processing (machine translations).The detailed description of the category and its subcategory is to be found in Roszko, R. 2004, whereas a brief description of the meanings along with examples is to be found in Roszko, D. & Roszko, R. to appear.

1. The meaning of uniqueness of the element and the set
The exponents of uniqueness of the element and the set for the three languages compared are very much similar -both in the nominal and the verbal phrase.Nevertheless, there are certain differences that exist.The most important of them is connected with the pronominal declension of qualitative adjectives, participles and participle-like forms.This feature is above all distinctive for the Lithuanian language.It also appears in the Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk, but like that it is not so common as in the Lithuanian language.The sources of the experimental corpus of the local dialect of Puńsk prove that using the compound declension of adjectives for expressing the uniqueness meanings is incidental.Moreover, the analysis of specific uses shows that today a fixed set of fossilized forms is more common than the functioning category.Among the most common forms to note are: juodoj 'the black one', margoj 'the spotted one', jaunoj 'the young one', žaloj 'the claret one', amžinaj acilsi 'eternal rest', jaunasis 'bridegroom', jaunoji 'bride' and others.The feminine gender forms predominate.Using the compound declension of adjectives in the uniqueness function refers to the oldest corpus records.The young and middle-aged generations of the Lithuanians of Puńsk, in principle, do not use these linguistic forms.To similar conclusions come Macukonienė and Markevičienė (2006).Moreover, the authors notice that the young generation that is getting to know the literary version of the compound declension at school does not use it on an every-day basis, even at school.You may have a feeling that the correct use of the adjectival forms of the compound declension in the uniqueness function causes them certain problems.It is worthwhile here, however, making a note of the fact that the dialectal declension of the compound adjectives differs from the declension well-known in the Lithuanian language, compare, for example, the masc.: jaunasai (dial.)-jaunasis (Lith.)etc.The difference in forming the compound forms can also contribute to replacing the uses of these forms with other lexical means, e.g. with pronouns.For the reasons given here, Table 1 demonstrates the adjectival and participial forms of the compound declension as potential for the local dialect of Puńsk.
A further element distinguishing the Polish exponents from those of Lithuanian (incl.the local dialect) is the unambiguity of the uses of the Lithuanian/dialect pronouns of the tas type.Although, the Lithuanian./dialectaltas is equivalent to the Polish ten / tamten, in many cases it appears difficult to establish the formal Polish equivalent.Then the meaning of definiteness in Polish is to be seen in context or a particular situation.It is worth mentioning that the Polish ten / tamten are ambiguous.The Lithuanian and dialectal tas is an unambiguous exponent of the state uniqueness.Equally unambiguously interpreted are Lithuanian and dialectal neuter gender pronouns of the tai type.Because of the fact that in the Lithuanian language and the local dialect there are no nouns of neuter gender, and thus no compound phrases constructed on the nouns, the pronouns of neuter gender of the tai type are a more specialized exponents of uniqueness than their most frequent Polish equivalent to.
In the verbal phrase it is possible to distinguish the Lithuanian and dialectal present forms of imperfective stems1 , which are unambiguous exponents of the state2 uniqueness.In Polish, the quantification meaning of using the present forms is to be found in context or in a particular situation.The Polish present form is a typical representative of the quantification understatement.
In examples 1 to 4, the Lithuanian sentences bear the forms of compound declension: kairiosios, tikrasis, priėjusysis (participle) and pirmoji , which unambigually express the meaning of definiteness.In Polish, definiteness is being observed on the basis of cooperation of the forms lewej , prawdziwa, (nowo) przybyły and pierwsza with context.
In examples 4 to 7, it is possible to observe the following correspondence: the Lithuanian lexeme tas -the unambiguous exponents of definiteness corresponds with different Polish lexemes: ów (in 4 and 5), tamten (in 6), ten (in 7), which are not the unambiguous exponents of definiteness.Even some contexts can be found in which these Polish forms are the exponentss of indefiniteness (here: proper existentiality), compare: Ten i ów coś zrobił i się rozeszli .Moreover, each of the Polish lexemes listed here contains the additional parameter referring to the distance in time or space.
In examples 8 to 10, no formal element in the Polish sentences corresponds with the highlighted Lithuanian unambiguous exponents of definiteness.
Compare also the below-mentioned example 22, and the use of the dialectal tas in it.

1. 1. The meaning of uniqueness presupposing existentiality
In principle, we can speak about a high level of correspondence between the compared languages if not for the fact that the Polish pewien is not the unambiguous exponent of uniqueness presupposing existentiality.In some contexts, the Polish pewien -replaceable with pronouns containing the particle -ś (e.g.jakiś) -can be the exponent of proper existentiality.The Lithuanian form tam tikras (e.g.tam tikras žmogus 'certain man') is an unambiguous, highly-specialized exponent of uniqueness presupposing existentiality.The dialectal highly specialized exponent of uniqueness presupposing existentiality is vienas.The form vienas is well-known also for the literary form of Lithuanian; sometimes in dictionaries, it goes along with the label: colloquial expression.However, the local dialect of Puńsk does not include the literary form tam tikras.Young generations of the Polish Lithuanians get to know this form at school.Examples from Lithuanian and Polish: [13] Tam tikrą laiką buvo populiari (uoliai laikraščiu˛skleidžiama) pažiūra, kad mąstantis okeanas, kuris supa visą Soliari ˛, yra gigantiškos smegenys, kurios, besivystydamos milijonus metu˛, pranoko mūsu˛civilizaciją.Tai esąs kažkoks "kosminis jogas", išminčius, i ˛kūnyta visažinybė, kuri jau seniai suvokė bet kokios veiklos bevaisiškumą ir todėl kategoriškai atsisako su mumis bendrauti.
In examples 13 to 14, the following correspondence is to observe: the Lith.tam tikras (an unambiguous means) corresponds with the Pol.pewien (an ambiguous means); in example 15, the Lith.vienas with the Pol.pewien; whereas in example 16, the Lith.vienas corresponds with the Pol.jeden człowiek .It is worth mentioning that in the Lithuanian sentence 16, a reduced phrase appears.Such a phenomenon is characteristic of the Lithuanian language, when one of the possible article-like forms appears in a phrase (e.g.tas, vienas, -jis).A similar phenomenon is being observed in the local dialect, compare the below-mentioned example 17.And in example 41, compare an analogous case to those presented in 13 to 14.

The meaning of proper existentiality
The typical exponents of proper existentiality in the Polish nominal phrase include pronouns, adverbial pronouns and adverbs with the particle -ś (ktoś, coś, jakiś, gdzieś, kiedyś etc.) and the adjective pewien.They are not unambiguous exponents.Pewien is also used to express the meanings of uniqueness presupposing existentiality, whereas the series of lexemes with the particle -ś, also to express the meanings of habitual universality; compare the below-mentioned 4.2.1.Lithuanian compounds with the particle kaž-are unambiguous, highly-specialized exponents of proper existentiality.A similar state can be observed in the local dialect of Puńsk, in which the phrases kokias ti / ti kokias play the same role.However, recently, the middle-aged and young generations of the Lithuanians of Puńsk have started using an exponent containing the particle kaž -, borrowed from the literary form of the language.Unfortunately, this form causes the Lithuanians of Puńsk a problem.It is rather used to express the meanings of both proper existentiality and habitual universality, like the Polish exponents with the particle -ś.The reason for this state of things is supposed to result from lack of the formal analogy between the dialectal and literary exponents.The existence of structural analogies is believed to allow a dialectal exponent to be automatically exchanged with a literary one.However, it is impossible, on account of another formal structure of the two aspects: dialectal and literary.However, the bilingualism of the middle-aged and young generation can be the reason for moving the meaning of Polish forms with the particle -ś onto the borrowed Lithuanian phrase with the particle kaž -.In the literary Lithuanian language, non-borrowed forms kaži, kažin are to be found, which, however, have not been included in the lexis of the local dialect of Puńsk.
In the verbal phrase, the Lithuanian and dialectal perfect forms are unambiguous exponents of existentiality of the state or the event.The Polish past forms are quantificatively ambiguous.-A co takiego?
In the above examples, the Lithuanian-Polish equivalences have been demonstrated to express the meanings of proper existentiality.In addition to the expected pairs: the Lithuanian form with the particle kaž -corresponding with the Polish form with the particle -ś, the using of the Lithuanian perfectum form conditioning the existential quantification can be observed, compare in 18 yra i ˛tarios, and in 21 buvo nurodęs.

The meaning of habitual universality
To express the meanings of habitual universality in the Lithuanian language, the forms with the particle nors are being used, among others.The Polish compound phrases including a pronoun, adverbial pronoun or adverb with the particle -ś (e.g.jakiś, jakieś etc.) are set with their Lithuanian equivalents.The Lithuanian forms with the particle nors are an unambiguous, highly-specialized exponent of the meanings of habitual universality.In Polish, the mentioned forms with the particle -ś are referred to as ambiguous.The Polish forms with the particle -ś are also exponents of the meanings of proper existentiality, compare the above 4.1.2.On account of the fact that the Polish language consequently does not distinguish any general habitual or proper general contents on the formal grounds, sometimes a pronoun, adverbial pronoun or adverb with the particle -kolwiek (e.g.jakokolwiek) appears in the function of habitual universality.
In the local dialect of Puńsk, pronouns and adverbs enriched with the particle ti , e.g.kokias ti are exponents of the meanings of habitual universality.As it is easy to notice, an identical form of exponent takes place in the local dialect as the exponent of proper existentiality.However, it should be emphasized that in case of proper existentiality, the particle ti is in pre-position, whereas, in case of habitual universality, it is in post-position.Moreover, it is often omitted, and then the meanings of habitual universality are being read/deducted from the pure form of pronoun or adverb, like in the literary Lithuanian language.
The Lithuanian language developed another exponent functioning in the nominal phrase.It is an adjective, participle or participle-like form of compound declension, e.g.mylimasis (usually every lover).The use of such forms of compound declension is not familiar to the local dialect.
In Lithuanian and in the dialectal verbal phrase, a typical exponent of habitual universality is the past interactive form.Similarly, the present forms of perfective stems as well as of point and momentary verbs (e.g.dingti 'vanish', rasti 'find') are an unambiguous exponent of the meanings of habitual universality.
Table 4. Exponents of habitual universality in Polish, Lithuanian and the Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk -contrastive comparison.

Polish
Lithuanian Local dialect of Puńsk series of lexemes with the particle -ś / series of lexemes with the particlekolwiek , e.g.jakiś / jakikolwiek series of lexemes with the particle nors, e.g.koks nors series of lexemes with the particle ti, e.g.kokias ti pure form of pronoun, adverb or adverbial pronoun, e.g.kas pure form of pronoun, adverb or adverbial pronoun, e.g.kas series of lexemes with the participle kaž -, e.g.kažkokias adjectival, participial and participle-like forms of pronominal declension (-jis, -ji ), e.g.gerasis (m.sg.), geroji (f.sg.), gerieji (m.pl.), gerosios (f.pl.)In examples 25 to 27 the most frequent equivalence of Lithuanian compound phrases containing the particle nors and Polish phrases containing the particle -ś is apparent.The Lithuanian nors marks the phrase as habitual universality.The Polish -ś, however, is typical of the meanings of both proper existentiality and habitual universality.
In examples 28 to 29, another way of expressing the habitual universality is exposed -the pure/independent using of a pronoun or adverb.Also in the examples, the Lithuanian forms correspond with the Polish phrases containing the particle -ś.
In examples 30 to 33, the forms of compound declension are exponents of habitual universality.In the experimental Polish-Lithuanian corpus there is lack of Polish equivalents.The examples 30 to 32 come from the texts which until now have not been translated into Polish.Example 33 is a Lithuanian proverb.
In examples 34 to 35, the Lithuanian past iterative form appears, compare also the low -mentioned dialectal example 38.

The meaning of proper universality
Compound phrases containing the particle bet are a Lithuanian unambiguous exponent of the meanings of proper universality.The particle bile is a dialectal equivalent , probably borrowed from Polish.However, unlike the Polish byle, usually meaning -not attach importance to choose something, the dialectal bile is a pure exponent of proper universality, devoid of any subjective assessment by the speaker.In Polish, the equivalent of the Lithuanian and dialectal phrases are compound phrases containing the particle -kolwiek .However, it should be emphasized that the Polish forms containing the particle -kolwiek are not an unambiguous exponent of the meanings of proper universality.They can express as well the meanings of habitual universality, compare the above-mentioned example 36.Hence, it is possible to interpret the Polish phrases containing the particle -kolwiek as 'almost always'/ 'always when'/ 'almost everyone'/ 'whoever'/ 'almost everywhere'/ 'wherever' etc.Therefore, in practice, the Lithuanian unambiguous exponents with the particle bet correspond with various structures that absolutely and unambiguously express universal quantification (for each x belonging to the set X , it is true that (Px)), compare in the below-mentioned examples the Polish wszelkie działanie (40), bez względu na okoliczności (41), z dowolnego materiału (42) etc. Dlaczego zajmowałem się byle bzdurą, byle wpadającym w rękę nieważnym drobiazgiem?
In example 40, the Lithuanian bet and the Polish byle correspondence is demonstrated.On the basis of the experimental Polish-Lithuanian corpus data, the equivalence is found to be relatively more often noted than the expected correspondence of the Lithuanian bet to the Polish -kolwiek .It appears that the Polish exponent byle, although marked subjectively as a rule, is an unambiguous exponent of proper universality.However, if the addresser tends to attach importance to selection, pros and cons, the choice of the Polish exponent byle is inadvisable.Then, the alternative Polish phrases with the particle -kolwiek not always turn out to be most accurate (quantification ambiguity) and tend to be replaced with a description guaranteeing the absoluteness of choice, in other words -the possibility of choice of every element belonging to the potential set.

Summary
The contrastive set of exponents of the semantic category of definiteness / indefiniteness in Polish, Lithuanian and the Lithuanian local dialect Puńsk in Poland demonstrates a number of substantial formal differences.First, the Lithuanian codes strictly distinguish the particular quantification meanings.The manifestation of this distinction are highly specialized exponents which are being used for expressing only and exclusively one quantification meaning.The Polish language does not implement such a rigorous assigning of the forms to the particular meanings, with the exception of the Polish byle.It means that the same Polish exponents are used to convey different quantification contents.In consequence, the quantification understatement phenomenon is much more frequent in Polish than in Lithuanian or in the local dialect of Puńsk.The quantification understatement in Polish is not only a feature of the nominal phrase.In the verbal phrase, the quantification understatement is more distinct.As far as in Lithuanian or the local dialect of Puńsk some quantification meanings result from just using the verbal form, in Polish, as a matter of fact, a particular quantification meaning is seen in context (e.g. the cooperation of particular verbal forms with pronouns, e.g.wtedy przyszedł 'then he came', with adverbs, e.g.zazwyczaj przychodził 'he used to come' etc.), in context or from the general minimum non-linguistic knowledge that the addressee and the addresser share, e.g.Wisła wpada do morza 'the Vistula flows into the sea' (general meanings); Cisza.Sylwia czyta 'Quiet, Sylvia is reading' (uniqueness of the state); Sylwia już czyta 'Sylvia is already able to read.' (general meanings).
The Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk in Poland is marked by a certain influence of Polish.One of the aspects of this influence is loss of using the compound declension of adjectives, participles and participle-like forms in the function of habitual universality (complete process) as well as in the function of uniqueness of the element or the set (drawing-to-a-close process).A further aspect of the influence is portmanteau (matching) of the Lithuanian literary form of the kaž-type (e.g.kažkokias) with the consuetude (custom) characteristic for its most frequent Polish equivalent -that is, pronouns and adverbs of the -ś type (e.g.ktoś, gdzieś).Therefore, the highly specialized forms of the kaž-type borrowed from Lithuanian (unambiguous exponents of proper existentiality) by users of the local dialect of Puńsk can be also used in the meaning of habitual universality.The possible dialectal borrowing of bile, compare the Polish byle should also be taken into consideration.However, it should be mentioned that a dialectal phrase is usually devoid of the subjective assessment by the addresser.
The article does not analyze the relation between the particular flexemes of the verb (prefixed/non-prefixed forms, perfective/imperfective stems, with the distinction of three different stems for each lexeme) and the predisposition to express the particular quantification meanings.In consequence, the quantification meanings of the Lithuanian past, past frequentative, perfect, past continuative, and future being in connection with the above-mentioned features have been omitted.
A separate analysis, in terms of expressing the meanings of definiteness/indefiniteness, should be put into effect for the use of Lithuanian participles in the verbum finitum position, e.g. in modal sentences.Moreover, they tend to be used in absolute structures and other syntactic structures, whose content is demonstrated in Polish with the help of compound sentences, e.g.Lith.Atvažiavę i ˛Varšuvą lietuviai nakvoja viešbutyje.-Pol.Litwini, którzy przyjechali do Warszawy, nocują w hotelu.
perfective stems as well as of point and momentary verbs present forms of perfective stems as well as of point and momentary verbs

Table 1 .
Exponents of uniqueness of the element and the set in Polish, Lithuanian and the Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk -contrastive comparison.

Table 2 .
Exponents of uniqueness presupposing existentiality in Polish, Lithuanian and the Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk -contrastive comparison.

Table 3 .
Exponents of proper existentiality in Polish, Lithuanian and the Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk -contrastive comparison.

Table 5 .
Exponents of proper universality in Polish, Lithuanian and the Lithuanian local dialect of Puńsk -contrastive comparison.