SENTENCE ADVERB I ALS IN A SYSTEM OF QUEST I ON 
ANSWER I NG W I THOUT A PREARRANGED DATA BASE 
Eva Kokt ova 
Hamburg, Wes t-Germany 
Abstract 
In the present paper we provide a report 
on a joint approach to the computational 
treatment of sentence adverbials (such as 
surprisingly, presumably or probably) and 
focussing adverbials (such as onl~ or a__ E 
least, including negation (not) and some 
other adverbial expressions, such as for 
examE_ ~ or inter alia) within a system of 
question answering without a prearranged 
data base (TIBAQ). 
This approach is based on a joint 
theoretical account of the expressions in 
question in the framework of a functional 
description of language; we argue that in 
the primary case, the expressions in 
question occupy, in the underlying topic- 
focus articulation of a sentence, the focus- 
initial position, extending their scope over 
the focus, or the new information, of a 
sentence, thus specifying, in a broad sense 
of the word, how the new information of a 
sentence holds. On the surface the 
expressions in question are usually moved to 
scope-ambiguous positions, which can be 
analyzed by means of several general 
strategies. 
1. Introduction 
The present paper provides a report on the 
integration of sentence adverbials (such as 
surprisingly, presumabl~ or probably) and 
focussing adverbials (such as only or at 
least, including negation (not) and certain 
other adverbial expressions, such as for 
example or inter alia) into a system of 
question answering (factual information 
retrieval) without a prearranged data base, 
i.e. with a data base consisting only of 
input technical texts in natural langage 
(TIBAQ). (Throughout this paper, the 
expressions in question will be jointly 
referred to as CA expressions.) 
The presence of CA expressions in natural- 
language sentences (the functioning of these 
expressions being closely connected with the 
topic-focus articulation, or communicative 
perspective, of a sentence) is one of the 
outstanding features in which natural- 
languge-sentences differ from their 
corresponding logical formulas (or their 
equivalents in various knowledge- 
representation systems), marking the dynamic 
and pragmatically based character of verbal 
communication, in contradistinction to the 
static, inventory-like character of logical 
formulas. 
In the present paper we propose to treat 
CA-expressions on a joint syntactico- 
semantic account, namely in terms of a 
single adverbial complementation 
(Complementation of Attitude), by means of 
68 
which it is possible to economically account 
for all of the properties which they share 
from the viewpoint of the synthesis and 
analysis of sentences: essentially, we argue 
that the scope of CA expressions extends 
primarily over the focus, or the new 
information, of a sentence, and that CA 
expressions are usually moved on the surface 
to various scope-ambiguous positions, which 
can be disambiguated by several general 
strategies concerning the topic-focus 
articulation of a sentence (these strategies 
are used in the algorithm of analysis of CA 
expressions). The class of CA expressions is 
supposed to be open-ended, bat the majority 
of them can be listed. 
2. Computational and Theoretical Background 
2.1 Computational background. 
The experimental system of automatic 
question-answering T\[BAQ (Text-and-Inference 
Based Answering of Questions, cf, Sgall 
1982, Hajicova and Sgall 1984) has no 
prearranged data base, its input consisting 
only of natural language sentences 
(statements) from technical texts. The 
inference rules of the system are quite 
simple and operate on the automatically 
gained underlying representations of 
sentences; on the one hand, they are 
intended to account for slightly different 
formulations of statements and questions, 
and on the other, for an enrichment of the 
data base by new, derived statements; in 
this sense, T1BAQ should be viewed as a 
system where the stock of data is compiled 
and updated automatically., without specific 
human efforts and without the necessity to 
employ the knowledge of the extralinguistic 
reality corresponding to the statements (cf. 
also D. Hays' notion of automatic 
encyclopedia). 
The major challenge of TIBAQ consists in 
removing the necessity for the user "to cope 
with the computer system", whereby the 
burden of the communication between man and 
computer is shifted closer to the computer. 
The system is based on the universal 
expressive power of natural language rather 
than on domain-specific phenomena; the first 
experiments dispense with the analysis of 
the factual knowledge corresponding to the 
sentences of the input text, thus not being 
committed to the "actual" structure of the 
world. 
There are four major procedures in TIBAQ: 
a liguistic analysis of the inference rules 
operating on the output of the linguistic 
analysis; a look-up for appropriate answers, 
and a synthesis of answers. Every underlying 
representation of a sentence corresponds to 
a relativey independent piece of 
information, which makes it possible to 
account for the scoping properties of 
operator-like expressions (ranging from 
to CA expressions) in a uniform way; the 
interconnect ions between the single 
underlying representations are assured by 
means of pointers in the lexicon, and 
registers. 
In the look-up for the appropriate answer, 
a key role is played by the topic-focus 
articulation of both the statements and the 
questions, since only such a statement which 
coincides with the question inter alia in 
its topic-focus articulation can provide a 
full answer; otherwise (in case the topic- 
focus articulation of the statement is 
"reverse" to that of the quest ion) the 
answer is considered as partial, and is 
prefixed with "I only know that..." (this 
asyrrrnetry between topic and focus being clue 
to the "exhaustive-listing" character of the 
information conveyed by the focus). 
2.2 Theoretical background 
The linguistic-theoretical background of 
TIBAQ is provided by the Functional 
Generative Description (FGD) as elaborated 
by the linguistic team of the Faculty of 
Mathematics and Physics of Charles 
University in Prague (cf. Sgall et al. 1969; 
Hajicova and Sgall 1980; SgalI et al. in 
press). FGD can be characterized as follows: 
(i) FGD is a multilevel (stratificational) 
system of explicit description of language, 
consisting of a generative component and of 
several levels of description, which are 
ordered from meaning to sound and related by 
a complex interplay of cases of homonymy 
(ambiguity} and synonymy on the basis of the 
asyrm~etrie dualism between form and function. 
(ii) The conception of linguistic meaning 
in FGD is narrow (literal meaning; cf. Sgall 
1978 and 1983), providing a general 
(universal) basis for di fferent 
applications. In FGD, only those 
distinctions are taken into account which 
are supposed to be directly structured by 
the system of natural language (cf. de 
Saussure' s and Hjelmslev' s "form of 
content"), and they are kept apart from the 
distinctions of the domain of the 
extralinguistic, cognitive {ontological) 
content. 
(iii) \]'lie conception of meaning in FGD 
involves also certain pragma t ic 
distinctions. Most important of them is the 
topic-focus ariculation (TFA) of a sentence, 
which includes the partitioning of a 
sentence into topic (conveying the 
old/given/salient/pres.upposed/contextually 
bound information) and focus (conveying the 
new/contextually non-bound information), and 
the deep word-order of a sentence, which is 
formal ly accountable for by the left-to 
right ordering of the nodes of the 
underlying dependency tree. TFA is connected 
with the organization of human memory, or 
with the stock of knowledge shared by the 
speaker and the hearer at a given point of 
discourse (the stock is supposed to be 
changing even during a single discourse, cf. 
Hajicova and Vrbova 1982). 
We assume that by means of the deep word- 
order of a sentence (i.e. without taaking 
recourse to salva veritate paraphrasing or 
to such devices as prenex quantifiers) it is 
possible to directly describe the scoping 
properties of natural-language quanti fiers 
{such as many_) as well as of CA expressions: 
general ly, the expressions standing in the 
underlying representation of a sentence to 
the left exhibit wide scope over the 
expressions standing to the right. 
3. Underlying Properties of CA Expressions 
3.1 The unmarked case. 
We argue that in the unmarked case, CA 
expressions (which can be viewed as 
specifying, in a broad sense of the word, 
how the information conveyed by the focus 
holds - e.g. it surprisingly holds, it 
probably holds, it does not hold, it for 
exampLLel e holds) occupy the focus-initial 
position, extending their scope over the 
rest of the focus of the sentence (this 
"rest of the focus" may consist of 
syntactically different elements, e.g. it 
may but need not contain the verb, it may 
contain one or more complementations, etc. ; 
for example, if there are four elements in a 
sentence ( the verb and three 
complementations), they can be arranged into 
15 different distributions of elements in 
the topic and the focus of the sentence). 
Our basic claim can be illustrated by the 
surface sentence 1 as derived from the 
simplified underlying representation la, 
where the slash (/) indicates the topic- 
focus boundary of the sentence and the arrow 
indicates the scope of the CA expression in 
question (p~_~) . 
1 This train will go ~ to York. 
la This train will-go / p~oba~ to York. 
I # 
3.2 Marked cases. 
In addition to the unmarked case, CA 
expressions may occur in several marked 
cases of underlying occurrence and scope 
interpretation, cf. (i)-(vii) below. 
(i) In the tol) ic of a sentence, CA 
expressions occur very rarely and exhibit 
idiosyncratic scoping properties; for 
exainple, not has in is scope usually the 
verb (belonging to the topic), while the 
other focussing adverbials (such as only_ 
have in their scope the iranedi a te ly 
fol lowing (noun) phrase (belonging to the 
topic). If there occurs another CA 
expression 
in a sentence, we speak of the topic-focus 
occurrence of CA expressio,ns in a sentence, 
in which case the scopes of the two CA 
expressions do not overlap. In this case, it 
is possible that a single CA exl)ress ion 
occurs twice in a sentence, cf Only_ Tel~ 
is preoccupied only_ with computers. 
(ii) Certain CA expressions (such as also 
or a L~gs_kn ) can occur both in the focus- 
initial posiion as the only element of the 
focus of a sentence, exhibiting an 
underlying backward scope which extends over 
69 
(contrastive elements of the topic), cf. 
TeKLLy - has a minicomputer also. In answers to 
2es-no questions, practically any CA 
expression may occur as the only element of 
the focus, cf. Will Terr Z come? Oh 
(he will come) certainly, 
(iii) In w h-questions, the w h-element 
(which is supposed to belong always to the 
focus, though it need not necessarily occur 
as the most corrrnunicatively dynamic element 
of the focus) stands in the scope of the CA 
expression which stands on the surface 
ilr~nediately before or after it, cf. Where 
exactly are Z_Qu - ~. 
(iv) In case of coordination of CA 
expressions, all of the CA expressions 
involved are assumed to have the same scope, 
cf. The last attempt~ unexpectedly and 
frustratingly~ has failed. 
(v) CA expressions frequently occur on the 
multiple occurrence (cluster) with the 
hierarchical type of scope interpretation, 
where every of the CA expressions involved 
has in its scope, on a recursive principle, 
the rest of the focus, cf. The train Koes 
surprisingly ~ ~ to York. 
(vi) CA expressions occur also on the 
multiple occurrence (cluster) with the 
intracluster type of scope interpretation, 
where the CA expression to the left has in 
its scope the CA expression to the right, 
cf.This train ~oes not surprisin lg~y_ to York. 
(vii) CA expressions occur also in 
parenthetical cbunks of sentences 
("afterthoughts", which do not belong to the 
basic structure of a sentence, being 
detached from it by a comma, semicolon, 
hyphen, brackets, or even fullstop), 
irrespective of whether there occur any CA 
expressions in the basic structure, cf. 
Terry likes to ~ especially basketball 
on Sunday_s. 
4.Surface Properties of CA Expressions and 
the Analysis of Their Scopes 
In this section, we describe the cases of 
scope-unambiguous and scope-ambiguous 
surface positions of CA expressions in a 
sentence, and there will be also proposed 
strategies of the analysis of the scope of 
CA expressions, especially in cass of the 
scope-ambiguous surface positions. 
4.1 Scope-unambiguous positions. 
We assume that, in English, all postverbal 
positions of CA expressions are scope- 
unambiguous, indicating the topic-focus 
boundary of a sentence (as placed 
immediately before the CA expression) and 
simultaneously also the scope of the CA 
expression (as extending forward, over the 
expressions which follow it on the surface, 
usually up to the end of a sentence), cf. 1 
as derived from la (see 3.1). 
This strategy of resolving the scope of CA 
expressions in such a straightforward way is 
applicable also in case of the occurrence of 
two (lexically distinct) CA e::pressions in a 
sentence. If the CA expressions stand side 
by side, first of all their type of scope 
interpretation should be specified (cf.4.3), 
but if one of them occurs in a scope- 
7O 
the relatively new elements of the topic 
unambiguous (= postverbal) position and the 
other in a scope-ambiguous position (such as 
the sentence-initial or the preverbal 
position, cf. 4.2), the multiple occurrence 
of CA expressions on the hierarchical scope 
interpretation is involved, the scope of the 
CA expression in the scope-unambiguous 
position 
being resolved in a straightforward way, and 
the scope of the CA expression in the scope- 
ambiguous position (hierarchically) 
extending over the CA expression in the 
scopeZunambiguous position plus the 
following expression(s), cf. 2 and 3 as 
unambiguously derived from 2a. 
2 Probably, the train collided onl E with a 
truck. 
3 The train probably collided onl Z with a 
truck. 
2a The train collided / probably o~ with 
1 
a t ruck, 
The only exception to this strategy is 
constituted by the topic-focus occurrence of 
CA expressions as mentioned in (i) of 3.2. 
4.2 Scope-ambiguou~ positions. 
In English, there are several types of 
surface movement of CA expressions to scope- 
ambiguous positions; these types carl be 
combined to yield cases of complex scope- 
ambiguity, and a single surface position may 
be ambiguous between two or more types of 
surface movement. Moreover, the multiple 
ocurrence of CA expressions involves the 
ambiguity of surface clusters of CA 
expressions between the hierarchical and the 
intracluster scope interpretations (cf.4.3). 
The types of surface movement of CA 
expressions can be described as follows: 
(i) The movement (from any underlying 
position) to the surface sentence-initial 
position, to the preverba\[ position or to 
the 
sentence-final position, cf. 4, 5 and 6, 
each of which is derivable from 4a, 4b or 
4c. 
4 Probably, train 2178 goes to York. 
5 Train2178 probably goes to York. 
6 Train 2178 goes to York, ~. 
4a / Probably train 2t78 goes to York. 
t 
4b Train 2178 / probably goes to York. 
4c Train 2178 goes / probably to York. 
J 
(ii) The movement of every CA expression 
of a cluster on the hierarchical type of 
scope interpretation to different scope- 
ambiguous surface positions, cf. 7 as 
derived e.g. from 7a. 
7 Surprisinglx, train 2178 ~ goes to 
York. 
7a Train 2178 goes / surprisingly pro~ably 
L --~ 
to Yor> 
The whole cluster of CA expressions on the 
hierarchical type of scope interpretation 
(unlike the clusters on the intracluster 
type of scope interpretation) essentia ly 
cannot be moved as a whole, cf. 8 as 
hypothetically derived e.g. from 8a). 
8 *Probably ~, train 2178 goes to York 
8a Train 2178 goes / probablyr ~ to Yor:4 
In cases (i) and (ii), but also in cases 
(iii), (v), (vi) and (vii), as we shall see 
below, a common strategy of the analysis of 
the CA expressions involved should be used, 
which is based on the determining of the 
elements of the topic of the sentence by 
means of certain crieria. The rest of the 
elements of the sentence should be 
considered as belonging to the focus,i.e, as 
standing in the scope of the (rightmost) CA 
expression of the sentence. This strategy is 
based on the following principle: if the 
words or phrases under examination 
(typicaly, the verb or a complementation 
consisting of a simple (noun} phrase) are 
contextually bound, i.e. if they refer to an 
entity which has been relevantly mentioned 
in the previous co-text, or if they are 
connected by associative links to previously 
mentioned entities, or if they exhibit 
general lexical meaning, or if they are 
permanently activated in the memory of the 
speaker and the hearer(s), they probably 
belong to the topic of the sentence, from 
which it follows that they stand outside the 
scope of the CA expression in question. 
Otherwise they belong to the focus and stand 
in the scope of the CA expression in 
question. Let us refer to this strategy as 
the contextual strategy {for a more exact 
formulation of such a strategy, cf. 
Hajicova, Sgall and Vrbova 1984). 
(iii) If a CA expression has in its scope 
the focus of an embedded clause, it may be 
moved within the embedded clause, or it may 
be "raised" to the beginning of the complex 
sentence, cf. 9 as derived from 9a. 
9 Probably, Terry wants to earn money so 
that he could buy a minicomputer. 
9a "Ferry wants to arn money so that he could 
buy / r KLobab_~fl_y - a minicomputer. 
Also in this case, the scope of the CA 
expression in question should be resolved by 
means of the contextual strategy as 
described above in (ii). 
(iv) The whole focus (consisting of a 
focussing adverbial and an expressions 
standing in its scope) may be moved to the 
beginning of the sentence, especially i f the 
focussing adverbial extends over the Subject 
of the sentence, cf. I0 as derived from 10a. 
10 Onl E Terry will run through a tunnel. 
10a Through a tunnel will-run / ~L Terry4 
In this case the scope of the CA 
expression in question can be resolved by 
means of taking into account the lexical 
type of the CA expression involved 
(focussing adverbial) and its surface 
position (sentence-initial position not 
detached by a comma from the rest of the 
sentence) as extending over the immediately 
following (noun) phrase. Let us refer to 
this strategy as the lexical-positional 
strategy (for another variant thereof, cf. 
(v) below). 
(v) Focussing CA expressions may be moved 
to the postphrasal position, i. e. after the 
phrase which stands in their scope. In this 
case, the CA expression in question may 
occupy either the sentence-final position 
(cf. II as derived from lla}, or, in case 
the whole focus has been moved to the 
beginning of the sentence, a sentence-medial 
position (after the Subject noun phrase). 
11 Terry has a dog for his pleasure only. 
lla Terry has a dog / on_q~_ Z for his pleasure. 
t 
In the former case, the scope of the CA 
expression in question can be resolved again 
by a variant of the lexical-positional 
strategy (a focussing adverbial standing in 
the sentence-final position not detached by 
a comma from the rest of the sentence has in 
its scope the immediately preceding (noun) 
phrase). 
In the latter case, the scope of the CA 
expression in question can be generally 
resolved by means of the contextual 
strategy, with one exception: if there ocurs 
an auxiliary in the sentence, a clue for the 
resolution of the scope of the CA expression 
is provided by the fact that in this case 
the CA expression stands immediately after 
the Subject noun phrase, i.e. before the 
auxiliary (in contrast to the scope- 
ambiguous preverbal position of CA 
expressions), cf. 12 vs. 13. 
12 John particularl Z will like these 
rituals. 
13 John will .particularly like these 
rituals, 
(vi) The scope of the CA expressions also 
and aRain if they stand alone in the focus 
{cf. (ii) of 3.2) should be resolved by 
means of the contextual strategy, with the 
exception that there is sought a relatively 
new element of topic of the the sentence, 
cf. the second sentence of 14 as derived 
from 14a. 
14 Terry has a minicomputer. But llenry has a 
minicomputer also. 
14a Henry has a minicom)uter / also. 
(vii) It should be brought to attention 
that every of the cases (i)-(vi) should he 
considered as multiply ambiguous if a 
complex (noun) phrase standing in the scope 
of a CA expression is involved, namely in 
that the scope of the CA expression may 
extend over the whole complex (noun) phrase, 
or over a subconstituent thereof embedded at 
any depth of the complex phrase, yielding an 
embedded focus. In this case, the CA 
expression is obligatorily moved before the 
whole complex phrase. 
71 
4.3 Resolving multiple occurrence. 
(i) If there occur in a sentence two 
occurrences of a single CA expression {such 
as not L ~ especially) as not standing 
side by side, or if there occurs not as not 
immediately preceding another CA expression, 
the topic-focus occurrence of ca expressions 
is involved (cf. (i) of 3.2). 
If there occur in a sentence two or more 
lexically different CA expressions, out of 
which at least one is moved to a scope- 
ambiguous position (i.e. which is not 
standing side by side with the other CA 
expressions), the multiple occurrence of CA 
expressions with the hierarchical scope 
interpretation is involved {cf. 2 and 3 of 
4.1 and 7 of 4.2). 
This case should be distinguished from the 
case of the occurrence of a parenthetical 
chunk of the sentence containing a CA 
expression in addition to the occurrence of 
a CA expression in the basic structure of 
the sentence (cf. {vii) of 3.2). 
(ii) In case of the occurrence in the 
sentence of two or more CA expressions 
standing side by side, the type of their 
multiple occurrence should be resolved 
according to the following strategy: 
(a) If the leftmost CA expression is a 
focussing or likelihood CA expression 
followed by a sentence adverbial, the 
multiple occurrence with the intracluster 
interpretation is involved, cf. not 
surprisingly, at least probably., probably 
correctl Z. 
(b) Otherwise the multiple occurrence with 
the hierarchical scope interpretation is 
involved, cf. surprisingly not (to 
Brooklyn), probably at least (Terry)~ not 
onl z (computers). 
(For lack of space we cannot present here 
the algorithm of analysis.) 
6. Lexical Properties of CA Expressions 
The class of CA expressions should be 
considered as open-ended due to the 
existence of the productive (morphological 
and syntactic) means for the formation of 
new CA expressions (cf. e.g. the adverbial 
ending _LJ.Z or the formation of new CA 
expressions by syntactic derivation: t_oo my_ 
surprise r to the surprise of my_ brother, 
etc.}, similarly as the classes of 
expressions of other complementations (Time, 
Place, Manner) are open-ended, with the 
exception that the majority of CA 
expressions can be listed (we have 
empirically listed over 300 of CA 
expressions, but the list canot be presented 
here for lack of space). Thus, 
Complementation of Attitude should be viewed 
as one of the finite tools of natural 
language by means of which it is possible, 
in a functional description, to economically 
account for the infite and changing reality 
of natural language. 
The (open-ended) class of CA expressions 
can be divided into two immediate subclasses 
{,lamely, sentence adverbials and focussing 
adverbials), each of which can be further 
divided into several groups (for example, 
sentence adverbials can be divided into 
72 
style disjuncts, factive and non-factive 
attitudinal disjuncts, and expressions of 
likelihood). Sentence adverbials 
semantically differ from focussing 
adverbials essentially in the following 
respects: 
{i) Sentence adverbials, unlike focussing 
adverbials, essentially exhibit full lexical 
semantics, being salva veritate paraprasable 
by means of clauses containing lexically 
corresponding adjectives or verbs (cf. 
surprisingly - it is surprising that). Out 
of focussing adverbials, only not is so 
paraphrasable (cf. it is not the case that). 
Such paraphrases should be viewed as scope- 
ambiguous in the same way as CA expressions 
standing in the surface sentence-initial 
position. 
(ii) Sentence adverbials (with the 
exception of non-factive attitudinal 
disjuncts and expressions of likelihood} can 
be salva veritate omitted from a sentence, 
while the other CA expressions cannot: their 
omission would at least partly change the 
truthconditional character of the sentence, 
cf. the necessity to use such "hedges" as 
mostLy_~ ~ not onlza_ at least L paartly, 
first of all, etc. in answers to questions 
like Is Pretoria inhabited by black 
- Yes L mostly/not only/first of all.). 
(iii) The distribution of sentence 
adverbials is restricted: they esentially 
cannot occur in ~es-no questions and 
commands, and they cannot occur in every 
type of embedded (dependent) clauses (e.g. 
in restrictive relative clauses, in 
conditonal clauses, etc.). 
(iv) On the /multiple occurrence of CA 
expressions with the hierarchical and 
intracluster scope interpretations, sentence 
adverbials and focussing adverbials exhibit 
reverse scoping relations. For example, with 
the hierarchical scope interpretation, style 
disjuncts exhibit wide scope over factive 
attitudinal disjuncts, which in turn exhibit 
wide scope over non-factive attitudinal 
disjuncts, which in turn exhibit wide scope 
over expressions of likelihood, etc. With 
focussing adverbials, for example at least 
exhibits wide scope over almost, etc. 
7. Conclusion 
In the present paer we have described the 
initial stage of the work on the integration 
of about three hundred adverbial expressions 
(such as surprisingly, probably, 
briefly, ~ ~ at least L for exam p..l_9. 
etc., specifying, in a broad sense of the 
word, how the focus, or the new information 
of a sentence, holds) into the analysis and 
synthesis of sentences within a system of 
automatic question-answering without a 
prearranged data base (TIBAQ), connected 
with the Functional Generative Description 
of language. 
In particular, we have argued that the 
expressions inquesion occupy, in the primary 
case, the focus-initial position and that 
their scope extends over the rest of the 
focus, or the new information, of a 
sentence, their behaviour being economically 
accountable for in terms of a common type of 
adverbial complementat ion (Complement at ion 
of Attitude) as embodying the open-ended 
character of the class of these expressions. 
On the surface, these expressions exhibit 
sur face movement t o scope- amb i gtlou 8 
positions (typically, to the sentence- 
initial or to the preverbal position), which 
makes it possible to propose several general 
strategies for the analysis of these 
expressions as concerns their scope. 

References

Bartsch, R. 1972. Adverbialsemantik. 
At tlenaeum-Ver 1 ag. 

Bellert, 1. 1977. On Semantic and 
Distributional Properties of 
Adverbs. Linguistic ~ 8/2, 
33'1-350. 

Ila icova, P;. 1973. Negation and Topic vs. 
Comment. Phi lnloogica Pl~sia 16, 
81-94. 

tla ieova, E. 1983. On Some Aspects of 
Presupposiions of Questions. P. 
Kiefer (ed.), Quest ions and Answers, 
Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 85-96. 

lla ieova L E. and P. S~all 1980. A Dependency 
Based Specification of Topic and 
Focus. Journal of Linguistic 
Calculus 1-2, 93-140. 

k~ova~ Era. and .~._ V rbova 1982. Or~ the P.ole 
of the llierarchy of Activation ill the 
Process of Natural Language 
Understanding. COLING 82p~,_ 
Proceedings, Praba: Academia and 
Amsterdam: Nor th-Ilol land, pp. 107- 
114. 

Haj icow~, E. and P. Sgall 1984. Text-and- 
Inference Based Answering of 
Questions. P. Sgall (ed.}, 
Contributions to Functional 
Semant ics L and ~ad~e_ 
Comprehension, Praha: Academia, pp. 
291-320. 

Hajicova, E., P. Sgall and J. Vrbova 1984. 
Topic, Focus, and llow to Identify 
Thegn. W. Abraham (ed.), G roninger 
Arbeiten zur germanistischen 
\[,ij!~ , Rijksuniversiteit 
Groningen, pp. 121-141. 

Koktova, E. 1983. Towards the Semantics of 
Sentence Adverbials. First Conference 
of ACL-Eur%p_9~_ Proceedings, pp. 74- 
80. 

Koktova, E. in print. Sentence Adverbials in 
a Functional Description. To be 
published by Benjamins. 

Lakoff, G. 197. Adverbs and Modal Operators. 
University of Michigan: mimeo. 

Materna, P. and Sgall,P. 1980. Functional 
Sentence Perspective, the Question 
Test and Intensional Semantic. s. 
Journal of Linguistic Calculus 1-2, 
141-160. 

Platek, M., J. Sgall and P. Sgall 1984. A 
Dependency Base for a Linguistic 
Descripton. P. Sgall (ed.), 
ContribuLions to Functional S~ 
Semanticst and ~N_e 
Comprehension, Praha: Academia, pp. 
63.-98. 

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. 
Svartvik. A Grammar of Contemporary 
En~\[_sl~. London: l,ongmans. 

Sehreiber, p. 1972. Style Disjuncts and the 
Performative Analysis. Liny::~istic 
In E~!~Zy_ :3/3, :/21-348. 

Sgall, p. 1978. Towards a Pragmatically 
Based Theory of Meaning. 
Bulletin of Mathematical Lin2gujstics 
30, 43-60. 

Sgall, P.1982. Natural Languge Understand- 
ing and the Perspectives of Question 
Answering. COLING 82 L Proceedi~s, 
Praha: Academia and Amsterdam: North- 
llol land, pp. 257-272. 

Sgall, p.1983. Relevance of Topic and Focus 
for Automatic Question Answering. V. 
Kiefer, (ed.), Questions and Answers 
I)ordrecht: P, eidel, pp. 257-272. 

Sgal I, P. , . Nebesky, A. Goralcikova, and E. 
llajicova 1969. A Functional A~z1)roach 
to S#ntax. New York: Elsevier. 

Sgal I, P. , E. llaj icova anti E. Benesova 1973. 
~Cj_ FOCLIS and Generative Seman- 
tics. Kronberg/Ts.: Scriptor. 

Sgall, P. and E. IIajieova 1977-78. F'ocus on 
Focus. ~e Bulletin of 
Mathematical Linguistics 28, 5-34, 
and 29, 23-41. 

Sgal l , P. E. Haj icova and J.Panevova in 
print. The Meaning_ of a Sentence in 
Its Semantic. and Prag~mtic Aspects. 
To be published by Academia (Praha) 
and P.eidel (Dordrecht). 

Strang, 13. 1971. Modern English Structure° 
l,ondon: I-\]. Arnold. 
