TOWAR/S THE SEI~ANTICS OF S!NTENCE AYVERBIALS 
Eva Koktov~ 
9. kv~tna 1576 
39001 T~bor, Czechoslovakia 
ABSTRACT 
In the present paper we argue that 
the so-called sentence adverbials 
(typically, adverbs like probably, 
admittedly,...) should be generated, in 
the framework of Functional Generative 
Description, by means of a special deep 
case - Complementation of Attitude (CA) 
on grounds of their special behaviour 
in the topic-focus articulation (TFA) 
of a sentence. From the viewpoint of the 
translation of CA expressions (and also 
of the multiple occurrence thereof 
inside a sentence) into a calculus of 
intensional logic, it should be noted 
that the TFA properties of CA expressions 
are directly correlated to the scope 
properties thereof. Our approach, which 
is stated in terms of a lir~istic 
theory, serves as a basis for an 
algorithm of analysis of CA for purposes 
of a system of man-machine communication 
without a pro-arranged data base. 
positions of the occurrence of negation. 
As negation only slightly differs in its 
distribution on the surface, there is 
raised a proposal according to which 
negation (and other minority group 
adverbs with similar properties) should 
be generated as a case of CA. 
CA (including negation and other 
minority group adverbs) is defined in FCD 
by its position in the underlying basic 
ordering of complementations; presumably, 
it occupies the leftmost, i.e. the 
communicatively least dynamic position. 
The TFA properties of CA (also on 
its multiple occurrence inside a 
sentence) should be taken into account 
also in the translation of CA expressions 
into a calculus of intensional logic 
because they are directly correlated to 
the scope properties thereof. 
The TFA distinctions which are 
reflected on the surface serve es clues 
for an algorithm of analysis of CA 
expressions in written technical texts 
for purposes of a question answering 
system without a pre-arranged data base. 
I INTRODUCTION 
In the present paper we argue that 
the so-called sentence adverbials 
(typically, adverbs like probabl~, 
admittedl2,... ) as well as certain 
minority group adverbs (such as 
especially, also, not, even,...) 
should be generated-~-in-~ framework 
of Functional Generative Description 
(henceforth, FGD), by means of a new 
complementation (functor, deep case), 
namely Complementation of Attitude 
(henceforth, CA). 
We argue that in the underlying 
structure of a sentence, CA can occupy 
several positions in the topic-focus 
articulation (henceforth, TFA) of a 
sentence, which coincide with the 
II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 
A. General Issues 
FCD is a multilevel system; it 
consists of a sequence of five levels 
which are connected by the asymmetrical 
relation of form and function, which 
accomts for the phencmen~ of homonymy 
and synonymy in natural language. The 
description of a sentence is equivalent 
to a sequence of its representations on 
all levels. The difference 
between the level of (strict, literal, 
linguistic) meaning (i.e. the underlying, 
74 
or tectogr~mmatical level - a level of 
disambiguated linguistic expressions) and 
the level of surface syntax, being 
parallel to the difference which is made 
in transformational grammar 
between the levels of deep and surface 
structure, constitutes the strong ~ 
enerative power of the FGD system; see 
Sgall et al., 1969), (Haji~ovA and 
Sgall, 1980), and (Sgall et al., 
forthcoming). 
The grammar of FGD consists of the 
generative component in the form of a 
dependency grammar, which generates 
underlying (tectogrammatical) 
representations (henceforth, TRs) of 
sentences in the form of linear formulas 
(which can be rendered also in the shane 
of rooted and projective dependency 
trees), and of the transductive component, 
by means of which TRs are translated, 
step by step, onto the lower levels of 
FGD. 
~ost important for the 
considerations in linguistic theory is 
the level of meaning - a link between 
the lower levels of the linguistic system 
and the (extralinguistic) domain of 
cognitive (ontological) content. It 
should be emphasized in this place that 
the distinctions of the level of meaning 
are correlated to those of the domain of 
cognitive content only in the translation 
of (disambiguated, meaningful) linguistic 
expressions into a calculus of 
intensional logic, see (\[,~aterna and 
Sgall, 1980), (Kosfk and Sgall, 1981) 
and (~aterna and Sgall, 1983). Thus, 
there should be distinguished, on the one 
hand, the linguistic semantics, which 
deals only with the distinctions which 
are structured by the linguistic form, 
see (Sgall et al., 1977) and also 
de Saussure's and Hjelmslev's conception 
of meaning as "form of content", and on 
the other hand, the logical (cognitive) 
semantics, which is committed to 
(conceptions of) the ontological 
structure of reality and which is used 
in the interpretation of linguistic 
expressions with respect to the 
extralinguistic content in their 
translation into a logical calculus, e.g. 
for purposes of natural language 
understanding. 
There are two relations defined on 
the dependency tree of the TR of a 
sentence: the relation of dependency and 
the relation of the deep word-order, 
which means that a TR captures the 
twofold structuring of (the meaning of) 
a sentence: its (syntactically based) 
dependency ~tructure and its (semantico- 
-pragmatically based) communicative 
structure, i.e. its TFA. 
In the dependency structure of a 
sentence the root of the tree reoresents 
the main verb, and the nodes of the main 
subtree represent its obligatory, 
optional and free complementations. The 
dependency principle is recursive. Each 
node has labels of three types: lexemic, 
morphological (such as -plural, 
-future,...) and syntactic (such as 
Actor, Locative,...); the syntactic 
labels may be alternatively viewed as 
labels on the edges of the tree. Every 
verb, noun, adjective and adverb has its 
case frame, i.e. a specificstion of its 
obligatory and ootional complementstions, 
see (Panevov~, 1977). 
B. Tooic-Focus Articulation Background 
In the communicative structure of 
a sentence there is captured the deep 
word-order of the (occurrences of) 
complementations, corresponding to a 
hierarchy of degrees of communicative 
dynamism thereof, as well as the boundary 
(boundness juncture) between the topic 
and the focus of a sentence, i.e. between 
the contextually bound and non-bound 
elements of the main subtree of a 
sentence. In fact, the above mentioned 
communicative distinctions cut across 
the dependency structure of a sentence; 
thus, every embedded clause as well as 
every (complex) phrase has its secondsry 
TFA, including a secondary boundness 
juncture. The notion of contextual 
boundness is broadly conceived: not only 
a previous mentioning in a text but also 
a situational activation may cause ~he 
contextual boundness of an element. ~ 
The degrees of communicative 
dynamism of the complementations 
On the surface we observe different 
means of how the TFA of a sentence is 
expressed: cf. the free surface word- 
-order in inflectional languages vs. 
the various syntactic means in languages 
with a fixed (grammatical) surface word- 
-order (such as cleft sentences or the 
existential construction there is in 
English), or the particles ga-a-~ wa in 
Japanese. A surface representation~f a 
sentence is often ambiguous between 
several possible underlying sources 
concerning the different placings of the 
boundness juncture; these possibilities 
may be disclosed by means of the negation 
test or the question test, see (Sgsll 
and Haji~ov~, 1977-78). 
75 
occurring in the focus of a sentence 
(i.e. also in a topicless sentence) obey 
the scale of the underlying basic 
ordering of complementations, or 
systemic ordering (i.e. ordering of all 
types of complementations on their 
occurrence in a topicless sentence). 
In FGD, universe of discourse is 
conceived as the activated part of the 
stock of knowledge shared by the speaker 
and the hearer during the discourse. The 
stock of shared knowledge is supposed to 
be dynamic, i.e. changing (being 
modified) in time during a discourse. The 
most activated elements of the stock of 
shared knowledge appear as the 
communicatively least dynamic occurrences 
of complementations inside a sentence. 
The speaker, essentially, is free in the 
choice of the topics of sentences. 
C. Exemplification 
By way of illustration of TRs of 
sentences in FGD, let us observe the 
surface sentence 1 and one of its TRs 
(namely the one where the Actor is 
contextually bound) captured by a 
(simplified) linear notation and 
indicated as TR l, where act stands for 
Actor, art for Attitude, loc for 
Location, b is a superscript indicating 
contextual boundness, the slash denotes 
the boundness juncture of a sentence, 
and the brackets correspond in a certain 
way to the edges of the dependency tree. 
1 Terry will probably run to Brooklyn. 
TR i ((Terryb)ac t / (probablY)att 
run-fut (Brooklyn)loc) 
III CO~.IPLEi~ENTATION OF ATTITUDE 
IN THE TOPIC-FOCUS 
ARTICULATION OF A SENTENCE 
A. Complementation of Attitude 
an__~d Ne~ati6n 
The starting point of our argument 
is the claim that CA obeys essentially 
the same pattern of occurrence in the 
underlying TFA structure of a sentence 
as the one which was proposed by 
(Haji~ov~, 1973) for negation. 
In her conception, negation is an 
abstract, operator-like functor of FOr 
without a label on its edge and without 
pertinence to the TFA of a sentence; the 
symbol NEG, generated as a label on the 
node of the functor of negation, must 
be changed by surface rules into such 
forms as not, do not, etc. 
In spite of the alleged 
non-pertinence of negation to the TFA of 
a sentence, there are delineated by 
Haji~ovA exactly three TFA positions 
(with respect to the position of the 
verb) in which negation can be generated; 
out of them, two belong to the primary 
case (negation occurring in the focus 
of a sentence) and one belongs to the 
secondary case (negation occurring in 
the topic of a sentence). 
In the scheme which follows 
we shall see that these three underlying 
positions are a perfect match to the 
possibilities of occurrence, in the TFA 
of a sentence, of CA. ~ In the examples, 
the scopes of the expressions in question 
are indicated by arrows. It should be 
noted that in the primary case (i.e. in 
(i) and (ii)), the scopes of the 
expressions in question extend over the 
focus of a sentence. 
(i) The verb of a sentence is 
non-bound (i.e. it occurs in the focus 
of a sentence). There is negated 
("attituded") the relation between the 
topic and the focus of a sentence. 
In fact, there is even a fourth 
possible position of negation and CA in 
the TFA of a sentence, which can be 
subcategorized as a subcase of (i): 
namely, a position where negation and CA 
are not only less communicatively 
dynamic than the (non-bound) verb, but 
where they play the role of the least 
communicatively dynamic element of 
a sentence (cf. TRs 2" and 3", also 
underlying the ambiguous 2 and 3, 
respectively), this leftmost position 
coinciding with the position of negation 
and CA in the underlying basic ordering 
of complementations. 
TR 2" ( / NEG (TerrY)act run-fut 
(Brooklyn)lo c) 
TR 3" ( / (orobablY)st t~ (Terry)ac t 
run-rut (Brooklyn)loc) 
76 
2 Terr 2 will not run to Brookl,yn. 
2 ((Terryb)act / NEG run-fut TR 
| • 
(Brooklyn)loc) 
3 (= l) Terry will probably run 
to Brooklyn. 
TR 3 ((Terryb)act / (probablY)at t 
run-fur (Brooklyn)loc) 
(ii) The verb of a sentence is bound 
(i.e. it occurs in the topic of a 
sentence). There is negated ("attituded") 
the relation between the topic and the 
(nonverbal) focus of a sentence. In this 
case, negation (or the CA expression) 
can stand, on the surface, either in the 
preverbal ,osition, which gives rise to 
ambiguity with case (i) above (cf. the 
ambiguous ~urface sentences 2 and 3), 
or in the ~ostverbal position, which is 
unambiguou:J (cf. the surface sentences 
4 and 5). 
4 Terry will run not to Brqokl,yn. 
TR 4 ((Terryb)ac t runb-fut / 
NEG (Brooklyn)loc) 
L ) 
Terry will run probably to Brooklyn. 
TR 5 ((Tezryb)act runb-fut / 
(probablY)at t (Brooklyn)lo c) 
(iii) The secondary case. The verb 
is bound and it alone is negated 
("attituded"). In this case, negation 
(or the CA expression) stands, on the 
surface, in the preverbal position, 
which gives rise to ambiguity with cases 
(i) and (ii) above. 
6 (= 2) Terry will not run to Brookl,yn. 
TR 6 ((Terryb)ac t NEG runb-fut / L 
(Brooklyn)lo c ) 
7 (= 3) Terry will probably run 
to Brooklyn. 
TR 7 ((Terryb)act (proVablyb)~tt 
runb-fut / (Brooklyn)lo c) 
B. Includin~ Negation into 
Complementation of A-~tude 
On the basis of the observed 
coincidence in the behaviour of negstion 
and CA in the underlying TFA structure 
of a sentence, we propose that negation 
and CA should be collapsed, i.e. that 
negation should be generated as a case of 
CA (by means of CA). On this prooosal, 
there would be removed from FGD the only 
abstract label (NEG) and substituted by 
the adverb not, which should be viewed as 
a regular tectogrsmmatical lexical unit 
occurring in TRs of sentences. Thus, 
TRs 2, 4 and 6 should be readjusted to 
a shape where instead of NEw'G, not is 
generated as bound or non-bound and as 
accompanied by the label of CA (att). 
b TR 2" ((Terry)act / (n°t)att 
run-fut (Brooklyn)loc) 
TR 4" ((Terryb)act runb-fut / 
(nOt)at t (Brooklyn)lo c ) 
TR 6" ((Terryb)act (notb)att 
runb-fut / (Brooklyn)lo c) 
The features in which negation 
differs from the rest of CA expressions, 
such as (i) its non-occurrence in the 
s@ntence-initial position on the surface 
(~Not, Terry is singing), (ii) its 
non-occurrence in the function of a loose 
comolementation in the sentence-final ~ 
osition (+Terry is singing, not) and 
iii) its regular occurrence in questions 
and commands, should be treated as 
exceptions which do not have the force 
to overthrow the generalization stated 
in III C., concerning the behaviour of CA 
(including negation) in the underlying 
structure of a declarative sentence. 
Moreover, as we shall see in III D., not 
is not an isolated item among the other 
CA expressions because there are also 
other minority group adverbs obeying the 
same paradigm of occurrence in the TFA 
of a sentence which exhibit the essential 
idiosyncratic properties of not. 
77 
C. Generalizing about C0mplementation 
of Attitude 
On grounds of the evidence supplied 
in IIIA., there can be made a ~ 
eneralization according to which CA 
including negation) occupies, in the 
underlying basic ordering of 
complementations, the position of the 
leftmost, i.e. the least communicatively 
dynamic element, which means that it 
occurs inside a sentence (in the primary 
case, i.e. in (i) and (ii) of IIIA.) 
as the least communicatively dynamic 
element of the focus, thus olaying on 
the surface (with the exception of the 
preverbal positions) the role of the 
topic-focus boundary indicator (cf. 
examples 4 and 5). 
Thus, CA is defined, as a 
complementation of FGD, by its position 
in the underlying basic ordering of 
complementations. In fact, every 
adverbial expression which obeys the 
paradigm of occurrence in the TFA of a 
sentence as specified in IIIA. (the 
position in the underlying basic 
ordering being only one instance thereof 
- cf. Footnote 2) should be classified 
as a case of CA, however idiosyncratic 
it may seem as concerns its lexical 
semantics, its distributional properties, 
or its possibilities of paraphrasing. 
to the single minority adverb groups 
(and even adverbial ex~ressions belonging 
to one group) differ in their lexical 
semantics, distributional properties, 
and possibilities of oara~hrasing. 
The groups of CA expressions can be 
tentatively subcategorized as follows: 
(i) "style disjuncts" (briefly, honestly, 
simply,...); (ii) adverbials of 
viewpoint (in m~ view~ accordin~ to the 
newspapers,...); (iii) "attitudinal 
disjuncts" (admittedly, surprisingly, 
unfortunately,...); (iv) adverbials of 
subjective certainty (probabl~, possibly, 
certainly,...); (v) "particularizers" 
(~, especially,...); (vi) 
"additives" (also, a~,..~); (vii) . 
negation (not,Tj--and--(-v-Hi) exclusives 
(only, even,...). 
We suppose that groups (i), (ii) 
and (iii) are open-ended (i.e. 
productive), whereas the members of 
groups (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii) 
can be listed; these groups can be then 
labelled as minority adverb ~roups. Out 
of them, grouos (v) - (viii) exhibit the 
idiosyncratic properties mentioned above 
in III B. and III D. 
D. Includin 6 other minority adverb 
~ into Complementation of 
de 
We argue that there should be 
included into CA also other minority 
adverb groups consisting of adverbial 
expressions (adverbs) which obey the 
paradigm of occurrence in the TFA of a 
sentence as specified in IIIA. and 
which share the essential idiosyncratic 
properties of not , such as especially, 
mai_~, also, a~ain, even, and only. 
All of them"exhibit th-~ropert1-~(ii) 
and (iii) (as specified in III B.), and 
only exhibits also (i). 
We propose, then, that CA should be 
viewed as a means of generating 
adverbial expressions which exhibit a 
special kind of behaviour in the TFA of 
a sentence (specified in IIIA.) and 
which can be divided into several groujs; 
the expressions belonging to the single 
groups are supposed to be differentiated 
primarily by their mutual ordering, which 
dictates their scope properties and whose 
violation yields ungran~naticality (cf. 
IV). The adverbial expressions belonging 
IV ~LTIPLE OCCURRENCE OF 
CO~PLE?~NTATION OF 
ATTITUDF INSID~ 
A SENTENCE 
In the underlying representations 
of sentences in FGD, CA can be generated 
essentially on two principles of 
multiple occurrence of a com~lementation 
inside a sentence. 
(i) Firstly, there can be generated 
in the focus (and in the secondary case, 
also in the topic) of a sentence 
clusters of two or more occurrences of 
CA, which differ in the degrees of their 
con~unicative dynamism; there hold 
specific scope relations between them; 
the CA expression with the highest 
degree of communicative dynsmism in the 
cluster has in its scooe the rest of the 
focus of a sentence (in the ~rimary 
case), or the rest of the topic (in the 
secondary case); the other CA 
expressions in the cluster have in their 
scopes the rest of the cluster. 
78 
If the adverbial expressions inside 
the cluster belong to different groups of 
CA, they obey a certain kind of ordering 
(as suggested by the listing in III D.), 
whose violatio~ yields ungrammaticality 
(cf. 8 vs. 9). If, however, the 
adverbial expressions occurring inside 
the cluster belong to the same group, 
they cooccur without any restrictions 
on their order. 
Terry will run / 
probably not only to Brookl.yn. 
I , 
9 +Terr 2 will run / 
only not probably to Brooklyn. 
If two occurrences of CA are 
detached by the boundness juncture 
of a sentence, they may cooccur without 
any resSrictions on their order because 
their scopes do not overlap; cf. lO, 
containing two negations. 
lO Terry did not sin~ / 
not because of Mary. 
(ii) Secondly, we suppose that on 
the coordinative-appositive principle of 
multiple occurrence of a complementation 
inside a sentence, the occurrences of a 
complementation do not differ in their 
degrees of communicative dynamism, and 
hence, that their order does not 
correspond directly to the principles of 
the TFA of a sentence: a coordinative or 
appositive unit presumably occupies, in 
the underlying representation of a 
sentence, the position of one "word" in 
the deep word-order. In TRs of sentences 
in FGD, coordination and apposition are 
not represented by means of the 
dependency tree, but require a special 
device. Thus, coordinative and appositive 
occurrences of CA have identical scopes: 
in ll, probably and certainly have in 
their scopes Terry will run to Brooklyn, 
3 On the multiple occurrence of CA 
within the loose occurrence thereof or 
within the coordinative-appositive 
multiple occurrence thereof, CA 
expressions do not obey the ordering 
suggested in III D; cf. a. 
a. Tragically but not surprisingly, 
Terry loves Mar~. 
and in 12, Terry loves Mary. In the 
linear representation, it is not possible 
to indicate the scopes by arrows. 
ll Probably or certainly r Terry will run 
to Brookl.yn. 
12 Probably, i.e. far from certainly, 
Terry loves Mary. 
ANALYSIS OF CO~LEMENTATION 
OF ATTITUDE 
In the analysis of simple CA 
occurrences in sentences in written 
technical texts within the framework of 
the question answering system TIBAO 
(cf. (~gall, 1983)), cases to be resolved 
by an algorithm concern, in fact, only 
those adverbs which may function both as 
CA and as Complementation of ~nner 
(such as amusingly, curiously, 
delightfully, foolishly, naturally, 
really, reasonably, S~rangely, 
surprisingly, unexpectedly, ~,... 
of group (iii), or honestly,~, 
~,... of group (i)). The adverbs 
w-h-~can function only as CA (such as 
probably, admittedly, unfortunately,... 
- there are at least one hundred of 
them) should be listed in the lexicon. 
Presumably, there occurs only one 
kind of genuine ambiguity with the 
adverbs which may function in the 
mentioned two ways (cf. line 8 of the 
algorithm below); 4 other cases of 
surface ambiguity can be resolved by an 
algorithm, due to the underlying TFA 
distinctions which are reflected on the 
surface (cf. line 9 of the algorithm 
below) as well as due to some 
4 In cases of genuine ambiguity (such 
as the one in 8 of the algorithm), the 
adverbial expression in question 
(naturally) cannot be resolved 
automatically because of the lack of 
surface clues for the disambiguation of 
the boundness juncture of the sentence: 
in this case, the adverbial expression 
in question functions as C~ if it is 
located in the focus of a sentence, and ~ 
as non-CA if it is located in the topic 
of a sentence. 
79 
idiosyncratic surface clues with the 
loose occurrence of CA in the sentence- 
-final position (cf. line 6 of the 
algorithm below). 
YES NO 
1. Is the adverb listed in 
the lexicon as a CA 
expression? 5 2 
2. ~oes the adverb occur in 
the sentence-final 
position? 3 4 
3. Is the adverb detached by 
a comma from the rest of 
the sentence? 6 7 
4. Does the adverb occur in 
an immediately postverbal 
position? 8 9 
5. CA: Terry is probably singing. 
Terry is singing probably in 
the garden. Etc. 
6. CA: Terry is singing, naturally. 
7. non-CA: Terry is singing naturally.. 
8. genuine ambiguity: Terry is singing 
naturall~ in the 
garden. ...... 
9. CA: Naturally, Terry is singing 
in the garden. Terry i.s 
naturally singing in the garden. 
Terry is singing in the garden 
naturally with his friends. 
It can be concluded that from the 
viewpoint of computational applications, 
the definition of CA in terms of the TFA 
of a sentence has enabled us to construe 
a simple algorithm of analysis of CA 
expressions, which is hopefully 
extendable also over the cases of 
multiple occurrence of CA inside 
a sentence. ~Ioreover, CA expressions 
occurring inside a sentence can 
themselves provide a clue for 
the disambiguation of the topic-focus 
boundary of a sentence. 
VI HLPEEENCES 
HajiSovA Eva. Negation s~d Topic vs. 
Comment. Philologica Pragensia, 1973, 
16:2, 81-93. 
and Sgall Petr. 
A Dependency Based Specification of 
Topic and Focus. Journal of Linguisti c 
Calculus, 1980, l:l-2, 93-140. 
and Sgall Petr. Towards 
Automstic Understanding of Technical 
Texts. Prague Bulletin of ~athematical 
Linguistics, 1981, 36, 5-24. 
Koslk Antonln and Sgall Petr. Towards 
a Semantic Interpretation of Underlying 
Structures. Theoretical Linguistics, 
1981, 8:1-3, 157-171. 
~aterna Pavel and Sgall Petr. Functional 
Sentence Perspective, the Question 
Test and Intensional Semantics. 
Journal of Linguistic Calculus, 1980, 
l:l-2, 141-160. 
and 8gall Petr. Optional 
Participants in a Semantic 
Interpretation (Arity of Predicates 
and Case Frames of Verbs). Prague 
Bulletin of Nathematical Linguistics, 
1983, 39, 27-39. 
Panevov~ Jarmila. Verbal Frames 
Revisited. Pra,~ue Bulletin of 
r~athematical L~n~uistics, 1977, 28, 
55-72. 
8gall Petr. Relevance of Topic and Focus 
for Automatic Question Answering. In: 
Ferenc Kiefer (ed.): Questions and 
Answers. Reidel Publishing Company, 
, Nebesk~ Ladislav, Goral~ikov~ 
Alla and Haji~ov~ Eva. A Functiona 1 
Approach to 8,yntax. New York: Elsevier, 
1969, 
, HajiSov~ Eva and Bene~ov~ 
Eva. Topic r Focus, and Generative 
Semantics. Kronberg/Ts.: $criotor 
Verlag, 1973. 
, Haji~ovA Zva ~,nd Proch~zka 
Old~ich. Cn the Role of Linguistic 
Semantics. Theoretical Linguistics, 
1977, 4:1, 39-51. 
and Haji~ov~ Eva. Focus on 
Focus. Prague Bulletin of ~Tathematical 
Linguistics, 1977-78, 28, 5-54, and 
29, 23-41. 
, HajiSov~ Ev~ emd Vanevov~ 
Jarmila. The TM ~,esnln~ of s Sentence in 
Its Semantic and Pr~mmti6 Aspects. 
Forthcoming. 
80 
