Part of
When Data Challenges Theory: Unexpected and paradoxical evidence in information structureEdited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 147–182
Edited by Davide Garassino and Daniel Jacob
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 273] 2022
► pp. 147–182
Is focus a root phenomenon?
This article argues that some types of syntactically
marked focus are root (main clause) phenomena in French. We show
that c’est (‘it is’) clefts, which explicitly mark
narrow new information focus, are root phenomena, in contrast with
il y a (‘there is’) clefts marking broad new
information focus and contrastive focus
c’est-clefts. Nominal inversion in French behaves
in the opposite way and is argued to be an ‘inverse root
phenomenon’. These observations are explained by Krifka’s (2017) notion of a
‘judge’, its relation to epistemic modality and the distinction
between assertive embedded clauses (in which root phenomena occur)
and non-assertive embedded clauses (in which root phenomena do not
occur).
Keywords: root phenomena, main clause phenomena, clefts, word order, information structure, epistemic modality
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 2.1Assertion and epistemic modality
- 2.2The concept of a judge
- 2.3Topics as root phenomena
- 2.3.1Different types of topics
- 2.3.2Predictions for focus
- 2.4Focus as a root phenomenon: Previous research and the goal of this paper
- 3.The distribution of three information-structural types of
c’est-clefts in French
- 3.1Three information-structural types of clefts
- 3.2Distribution of c’est-clefts in adverbial clauses
- 3.3Discussion: Contrastive focus and the concept of a judge
- 4.The distribution of il y a ‘there is’ clefts in
embedded clauses
- 4.1Introduction
- 4.2Information-structural types of il y a-clefts
- 4.3All-focus il y a-clefts inside embedded clauses: New data
- 4.4Broad vs narrow new information focus and the concept of a judge
- 5.Verb-subject word order in French: An inverse root phenomenon
- 5.1Introduction
- 5.2The distribution of VS in embedded clauses
- 5.3VS and the concept of a judge
- 6.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgments -
Notes -
References
References (109)
Aelbrecht, Lobke, Haegeman, Liliane & Nye, Rachel. 2012. Main
clause phenomena and the privilege of the
root. In Main
Clause Phenomena: New
Horizons, Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 1–19. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 
Authier, Jean-Marc & Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. An
intervention account of the distribution of main clause
phenomena: Evidence from
ellipsis. Iberia: An
International Journal of Theoretical
Linguistics, 4(1): 61–91.
Belligh, Thomas. 2020a. Dutch
thetic and sentence-focus constructions on the
semantics-pragmatics interface: A case
study. Studies in
Language, 44(4): 831–878.
. 2020b. Are
theticity and sentence-focus encoded grammatical categories
of
Dutch? In Thetics
and Categoricals, Werner Abraham, Elisabeth Leiss & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds), 34–68. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2021. Alternating
Constructions on the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface:
Theticity and Sentence-focus in Dutch and
Italian. PhD
dissertation, UGent.
Bentley, Delia & Cruschina, Silvio. 2018. The
silent argument of broad focus: Typology and
predictions. Glossa: A
Journal of General
Linguistics 3(1): 118.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2013. On
‘focus movement’ in
Italian. In Information
Structure and Agreement, Victoria Camacho-Taboada, Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Javier Martín-González & Mariano Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 193–216. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2015. Focus
fronting and the syntax-semantics
interface. In Beyond
the Functional Sequence, Ur Shlonsky (ed), 60–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bianchi, Valentina & Bocci, Giuliano. 2012. Should
I stay or should I go? Optional focus movement in
Italian. In Empirical
Issues in Syntax and
Semantics 9, Christopher Piñón (ed), 1–18.
Bianchi, Valentina & Frascarelli, Mara. 2010. Is
topic a root
phenomenon? Iberia 2: 43–88.
Bianchi, Valentina, Bocci, Giuliano & Cruschina, Silvio. 2015. Focus
fronting and its
implicatures. In Romance
Languages and Linguistic Theory 2013: Selected Papers from
‘Going Romance’ Amsterdam
2013, Enoch O. Aboh, Jeannette C. Schaeffer & Petra Sleeman (eds), 1–20. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2016. Focus
fronting, unexpectedness, and the evaluative
dimension. Semantics and
Pragmatics 9: 1–54.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2006. Les
clivées françaises de
type: C’est comme ça que,
C’est pour ça que, C’est là que tout a commencé. Moderna
Språk 100(2): 273–287.
Bres, Jacques & Nowakowska, Aleksandra. 2005. Dis-moi
avec qui tu “dialogues”, je te dirai qui tu es… De la
pertinence de la notion de dialogisme pour l’analyse du
discours. Marges
Linguistiques 9. <[URL]> (17 April 2021).
Brunetti, Lisa. 2009. On
links and tails in
Italian. Lingua 119: 756–781.
Büring, Daniel. 2012. Focus
and
intonation. In The
Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of
Language, Gillian Russel & Delia Graff Fara (eds), 103–115. London: Routledge.
Choi-Jonin, Injoo & Lagae, Véronique. 2005. Il
y a des gens ils ont mauvais caractère. A propos du rôle de
il y
a. In Sens
et références. Mélanges Georges
Kleiber, Adolfo Murguía (ed), 39–66. Tübingen: Narr.
Clech-Darbon, Anne, Rebuschi, Georges & Rialland, Annie. 1999. Are
there cleft sentences in
French? In The
Grammar of Focus, Laurice Tuller & Georges Rebuschi (eds), 83–118. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Collins, Peter C. 1991. Cleft
and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in
English. London: Routledge.
Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality
and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between
two different
categories. Functions of
Language 16(1): 44–62.
Cruschina, Silvio. 2012. Discourse-Related
Features and Functional
Projections. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 2015. Focus
structure. In Existentials
and Locatives in Romance Dialects of
Italy, Delia Bentley, Francesco Maria Ciconte & Silvio Cruschina (eds), 43–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davidse, Kristin & Kimps, Ditte. 2016. Specificational
there-clefts. Functional structure and information
structure. English Text
Construction 9(1): 115–142.
De Cat, Cécile. 2012. Towards
an interface definition of root
phenomena. In Main
Clause Phenomena: New
Horizons, Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 135–158. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria. 2014. Cleft
constructions in a contrastive perspective. Towards an
operational
taxonomy. In Frequency,
Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and
Germanic. Contrastive, Corpus-Based
Studies, Anna-Maria De Cesare (ed), 9–48. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.
. 2016. Les
phrases clivées de l’italien en contact avec le français.
Une analyse basée sur les textes diffusés sur le portail
swissinfo.ch. In Zwischen
den Texten: die Übersetzung an der Schnittstelle von Sprach-
und Kulturwissenschaft [Romanische
Sprachen und ihre
Didaktik 57], Christina Ossenkop & Georgia Veldre-Gerner (eds), 121–136. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag.
. 2017. Cleft
constructions. In Manual
of Romance Morphosyntax and
Syntax, Andreas Dufter & Elisabeth Stark (eds), 536–568. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.
De Cesare, Anna-Maria & Garassino, Davide. 2018. Adverbial
cleft sentences in Italian, French and English. A
comparative
perspective. In Focus
Realization in Romance and
Beyond, Marco García García & Melanie Uth (eds), 255–286. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies
on Copular Sentences, Clefts and
Pseudo-clefts. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Delin, Judy & Oberlander, Jon. 1995. Syntactic
constraints on discourse structure. The case of
it-clefts. Linguistics 33(3): 465–500.
Destruel, Emilie & De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph P. 2018. On
the interpretation and processing of exhaustivity: Evidence
of variation in English and French
clefts. Journal of
Pragmatics 138: 1–16.
Doetjes, Jenny, Rebuschi, Georges & Rialland, Annie. 2004. Cleft
sentences. In Handbook
of French semantics, Francis Corblin & Henriëtte De Swart (eds), 529–552. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le
dire et le
dit. Minuit: Paris.
Dufter, Andreas. 2008. On
explaining the rise of c’est-clefts in
French. In The
Paradox of Grammatical Change: Perspectives from
Romance, Ulrich Detges & Richard Waltereit (eds), 31–56. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2009. Clefting
and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and
Romance. In Focus
and Background in Romance
Languages, Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds), 83–121. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root
and Structure Preserving
Transformations. PhD
Dissertation, MIT.
. 1976. A
Transformational Approach to English
Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Erteshik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The
Dynamics of Focus
Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fournier, Nathalie. 1997. La
place du sujet nominal dans les phrases à complément
prépositionnel
initial. In La
place du sujet en français
contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed), 97–132. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
Frey, Werner & Meinunger, André. 2019. Topic
marking and illocutionary
force. In Architecture
of Topic, Valéria Molnár, Verner Egerland & Susanne Winkler (eds), 95–138. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.
Fuchs, Catherine (ed). 1997. La
place du sujet en français
contemporain. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
Garassino, Davide. 2014. Cleft
sentences in Italian and
English. In Frequency,
Forms and Functions of Cleft Constructions in Romance and
Germanic. Contrastive, Corpus-based
Studies, Anna-Maria De Cesare (ed), 101–138. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.
. 2016. Using
cleft sentences in Italian and English: A multifactorial
analysis. In Current
Issues in Italian, Romance and Germanic Non-canonical Word
Orders: Syntax – Information Structure – Discourse
Organization, Anna-Maria De Cesare & Davide Garassino (eds), 181–204. Bern: Peter Lang.
. This
volume. Translation as a
source of pragmatic interference? An empirical investigation
of French and Italian cleft
sentences. In When
Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence
in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Green, Georgia. 1976. Main
clause phenomena in subordinate
clauses. Language 52: 387–397.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004a. Topicalisation,
CLLD and the left
periphery. In Proceedings
of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, ZAS Berlin, November
2003, Benjamin Shaer, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 157–192. Berlin: Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg.
. 2004b. The
syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for
topicalisation. In Current
Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics: Proceedings of
the International Conference Held at the Antwerp University
(19–21 September 2002) to Honor Liliane
Tasmowski, Martine Coene, Gretel De Cuyper & Yves D’Hulst (eds), 61–90. Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
. 2006. Argument
fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the left
periphery. In Negation,
Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic
Investigations, Raffaella Zanuttini, Hector Campos, Elena Herburger & Paul Portner (eds), 27–52. Georgetown: University Press.
. 2007. Operator
movement and topicalisation in adverbial
clauses. Folia
Linguistica 41: 279–326.
Haegeman Liliane. 2009. The
movement analysis of temporal adverbial
clauses. English Language and
Linguistics 13: 385–408.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The
internal syntax of adverbial
clauses. Lingua 120(3): 628–648.
. 2012. Adverbial
clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left
Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic
Structures 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haegeman, Liliane & Ürögdi, Barbara 2010a. Referential
CPs and DPs: An operator movement
account. Theoretical
Linguistics 36(2–3), 111–152.
. 2010b. Operator
movement, referentiality and
intervention. Theoretical
Linguistics 36: 233–246.
Haegeman, Liliane, Meinunger, André & Vercauteren, Aleksandra. 2014. The
architecture of
it-clefts. Journal
of
Linguistics, 50(2): 269–296.
. 2015. The
syntax of it-clefts and the left periphery
of the
clause. In Beyond
Functional
Sequence 10, Ur Shlonsky (ed), 73–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedberg, Nancy Ann. 2000. The
referential status of
clefts. Language 76(4): 891–920.
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded
root
phenomena. In The
Blackwell Companion to
Syntax 2, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On
the applicability of root
transformations. Linguistic
Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.
Jacob, Daniel. 2015. Anaphorische
Spaltsätze im Französischen: Grammatik – Text –
Rhetorik. In Informationsstrukturen
in Kontrast: Strukturen, Kompositionen und
Strategien, Séverine Adam, Daniel Jacob & Michael Schecker (eds), 101–122. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Jullien, Stéphane. 2007. Prosodic,
syntactic and semantico-pragmatic parameters as clues for
projection: The case of “il y
a”. Nouveaux cahiers de
linguistique
française 28: 283–297.
Karssenberg, Lena. 2016. French
il y a clefts, existential sentences
and the focus-marking
hypothesis. Journal of French
Language
Studies 27(3): 405–430.
. 2018. Non-prototypical
Clefts in French: A Corpus Analysis of “il y a”
Clefts. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.
Karssenberg, Lena & Lahousse, Karen. 2017. Les
SN définis et indéfinis dans les clivées en il y
a. In Contraintes
linguistiques. À propos de la complémentation
nominale, Caroline Lachet, Luis Meneses-Lerín & Audrey Roig (eds), 197–210. Brussels: PIE Peter Lang.
. 2018. The
information structure of French il y a
clefts and c’est clefts: A corpus-based
analysis. Linguistics, 56(3): 513–548.
Katz, Stacy. 2000. Categories
of c’est-cleft
constructions. Canadian
Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de
linguistique 45(3–4): 253–273.
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic
notions of information
structure. In Interdisciplinary
Studies on Information
Structure 6, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 13–55. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
. 2017. Assertions
and judgments, epistemics and evidentials. Handout for the
workshop Speech acts:
Meanings, Uses, Syntactic and Prosodic
Realization, 1–16. Berlin: ZAS.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. The
categorical and the thetic
judgment. Foundations of
Language 9: 153–185.
. 1992. Japanese
Syntax and
Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lagae, Véronique & Rouget, Christine. 1998. Quelques
réflexions sur les relatives
prédicatives. In Analyse
linguistique et approches de l’oral. Recueil d’études offert
en hommage à Claire
Blanche-Benveniste, Mireille Bilger, Karel Van den Eynde & Françoise Gadet (eds), 313–325. Leuven & Paris: Peeters.
Lahousse, Karen. 2003. Le
sujet nominal postverbal en français
moderne. PhD
dissertation, KU Leuven.
. 2006a. NP
subject inversion in French: Two types, two
configurations. Lingua 116: 424–461.
. 2006b. L’assertion
et l’inversion du sujet nominal dans les subordonnées
adverbiales. Linguisticae
Investigationes 29(1): 13–124.
. 2010. Information
structure and epistemic modality in adverbial clauses in
French. Studies in
Language 34(2): 298–326.
. 2011. Quand
passent les cigognes: Le sujet nominal postverbal en
français
moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
. 2015. A
case of focal adverb preposing in
French. In Structures,
Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana
Belletti, Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds), 209–236. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lahousse, Karen & Borremans, Marijke. 2014. The
distribution of functional-pragmatic types of clefts in
adverbial
clauses. Linguistics 52(3): 793–836.
Lahousse, Karen & Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2012. Word
order in French, Spanish and Italian: A grammaticalization
account. Folia
Linguistica 46(2): 387–415.
. 2017. C’est
ainsi que: Grammaticalisation ou lexicalisation ou les deux
à la fois? Journal of French
Language
Studies 27(2): 161–185.
Lahousse, Karen, Laenzlinger, Christopher & Soare, Gabriela. 2014. Contrast
and intervention at the
periphery. Lingua 14(3): 56–85.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. Pragmatically
motivated syntax. Presentational cleft constructions in
spoken
French. In 22nd
Conference of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Papers from
the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical
Theory, Anne M. Farley, Peter T. Farley & Karl-Eric McCullough (eds), 115–126. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
. 1988. Presentational
cleft constructions in spoken
French. In Clause
Combining in Grammar and
Discourse, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 135–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 1994. Information
Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental
Representations of Discourse
Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2001. A
framework for the analysis of cleft
constructions. Linguistics 39(3): 463–516.
Larrivée, Pierre. 2020. Le
focus initial en français
vernaculaire. Scolia 34: 33–50.
. This
volume. The curious case of
the rare Focus movement in
French. In When
Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence
in Information Structure, Davide Garassino, Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Léard, Jean.-Marcel. 1992. Les
gallicismes. Étude syntaxique et
sémantique. Paris & Leuven: Duculot.
Legendre, Géraldine. 2001. Focalization
in French stylistic
inversion. In Romance
Languages and Linguistic Theory
1999, Yves D’Hulst, Johan Rooryck & Jan Schroten (eds), 143–166. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Leonetti, Manuel. 2013. Information
structure and the distribution of Spanish bare
plurals. In New
Perspectives on Bare Noun Phrases in Romance and
Beyond, Johannes Kabatek & Albert Wall (eds), 121–155. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Leonetti, Manuel & Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2021. Focus
structure and assertion in relative clauses: Evidence from
Spanish. In Cartography
and Explanatory Adequacy, Dennis Ott & Ángel Gallego (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Querler, Nathalie. 1997. La
place du sujet nominal dans les subordonnées
percontatives. In La
place du sujet en français
contemporain, Catherine Fuchs (ed), 179–203. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. This
volume. Distinguishing
psychological Given/New from linguistic Topic/Focus makes
things
clearer. In When
Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence
in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Masia, Viviana. This volume. Remarks on Information Structure marking asymmetries: The epistemological view on the micropragmatic profile of utterances. In When Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Matić, Dejan, Van Gijn, Rik & Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2014. Information
structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. An
overview. In Information
Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex
Sentences, Rik Van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten, & Ana Vilacy Galucio (eds), 1–42. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mertens, Piet. 2011. Prosodie,
syntaxe, discours: autour d’une approche
prédicative. In Actes
d’IDP 2009, Paris, Septembre
2009, Hi-Yon Yoo & Elisabeth Delais-Roussarie (eds), 19–32. Paris.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements
that occur only in the main
clause. In Main
Clause Phenomena: New
Horizons, Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 79–112. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nølke, Henning. 1994. Linguistique
modulaire: De la forme au
sens. Leuven: Peeters.
. 2006. Pour
une théorie linguistique de la
polyphonie. Langue
française 4(164): 3–9.
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A
comparison of wh-clefts and
it-clefts in
discourse. Language 54(4): 883–906.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics
and linguistics: An analysis of sentence
topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.
Riester, Arndt & Baumann, Stefan. 2013. Focus
triggers and focus types from a corpus
perspective. Dialogue &
Discourse 4(2): 215–248.
Roggia, Carlo Enrico. 2008. Frasi
scisse in italiano e francese orale: evidenze dal
C-ORAL-ROM. Cuadernos de
filología
italiana 15: 9–29.
Rosemeyer, Malte, Jacob, Daniel & Konieczny, Lars. This
volume. How alternatives are
created: Specialized background knowledge affects the
interpretation of clefts in
discourse. In When
Data Challenges Theory. Unexpected and Paradoxical Evidence
in Information Structure, Davide Garassino & Daniel Jacob (eds). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Scappini, Sophie. 2014. La
construction clivée: focus étroit ou focus
large. Fiche
Fracov. <[URL]> (17 April 2021).
Tasmowski, Liliane & Willems, Dominique. 1987. Les
phrases à première position actancielle vide: Par la
porte ouverte (il) entrait une odeur de nuit et de
fleurs. Travaux
de
linguistique 14/15: 177–191.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2007. Rethinking
the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy. Interpersonal Grammar
and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in
English. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Verwimp, Lyan & Lahousse, Karen. 2017. Definite
il y a clefts in spoken
French. Journal of French
Language
Studies 27(3): 263–290.
Ward, Gregory L. 1988. The
Semantics and Pragmatics of
Preposing. New York: Garland.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo
2022. Distinguishing psychological Given/New from linguistic
Topic/Focus makes things clearer. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 39 ff. 
Masia, Viviana
2022. Remarks on information structure marking asymmetries. In When Data Challenges Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 273], ► pp. 57 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.