- Dutch
- Frisian
- Afrikaans
-
Dutch
-
Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
- Phonological processes
- Phonology-morphology interface
-
Word stress
-
Primary stress in simplex words
- Monomorphemic words
- Diachronic aspects
- Generalizations on stress placement
- Default penultimate stress
- Lexical stress
- The closed penult restriction
- Final closed syllables
- The diphthong restriction
- Superheavy syllables (SHS)
- The three-syllable window
- Segmental restrictions
- Phonetic correlates
- Stress shifts in loanwords
- Quantity-sensitivity
- Secondary stress
- Vowel reduction in unstressed syllables
- Stress in complex words
-
Primary stress in simplex words
- Accent & intonation
- Clitics
- Spelling
-
Morphology
-
Word formation
-
Compounding
- Nominal compounds
- Verbal compounds
- Adjectival compounds
- Affixoids
- Coordinative compounds
- Synthetic compounds
- Reduplicative compounds
- Phrase-based compounds
- Elative compounds
- Exocentric compounds
- Linking elements
- Separable complex verbs (SCVs)
- Gapping of complex words
- Particle verbs
- Copulative compounds
-
Derivation
- Numerals
- Derivation: inputs and input restrictions
- The meaning of affixes
- Non-native morphology
- Cohering and non-cohering affixes
- Prefixation
- Suffixation
- Nominal suffixation: person nouns
- Conversion
- Pseudo-participles
- Bound forms
-
Nouns
- Nominal prefixes
-
Nominal suffixes
- -aal and -eel
- -aar
- -aard
- -aat
- -air
- -aris
- -ast
- Diminutives
- -dom
- -een
- -ees
- -el (nominal)
- -elaar
- -enis
- -er (nominal)
- -erd
- -erik
- -es
- -eur
- -euse
- ge...te
- -heid
- -iaan, -aan
- -ief
- -iek
- -ier
- -ier (French)
- -ière
- -iet
- -igheid
- -ij and allomorphs
- -ijn
- -in
- -ing
- -isme
- -ist
- -iteit
- -ling
- -oir
- -oot
- -rice
- -schap
- -schap (de)
- -schap (het)
- -sel
- -st
- -ster
- -t
- -tal
- -te
- -voud
- Verbs
- Adjectives
- Adverbs
- Univerbation
- Neo-classical word formation
- Construction-dependent morphology
- Morphological productivity
-
Compounding
- Inflection
- Inflection and derivation
- Allomorphy
- The interface between phonology and morphology
-
Word formation
-
Syntax
- Preface and acknowledgements
-
Verbs and Verb Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
- 2 Projection of verb phrases I:Argument structure
-
3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations
- Introduction
- 3.1. Main types
- 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument
-
3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
-
3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.3.1.1. Dative alternation with aan-phrases (recipients)
- 3.3.1.2. Dative alternation with naar-phrases (goals)
- 3.3.1.3. Dative alternation with van-phrases (sources)
- 3.3.1.4. Dative alternation with bij-phrases (possessors)
- 3.3.1.5. Dative alternation with voor-phrases (benefactives)
- 3.3.1.6. Conclusion
- 3.3.1.7. Bibliographical notes
- 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
- 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
-
3.3.1. Dative/PP alternations (dative shift)
- 3.4. Some apparent cases of verb frame alternation
- 3.5. Bibliographical notes
- 4 Projection of verb phrases IIIa:Selection of clauses/verb phrases
-
5 Projection of verb phrases IIIb:Argument and complementive clauses
- Introduction
- 5.1. Finite argument clauses
- 5.2. Infinitival argument clauses
- 5.3. Complementive clauses
- 6 Projection of verb phrases IIIc:Complements of non-main verbs
- 7 Projection of verb phrases IIId:Verb clusters
- 8 Projection of verb phrases IV: Adverbial modification
- 9 Word order in the clause I:General introduction
- 10 Word order in the clause II:Position of the finite verb (verb-first/second)
-
11 Word order in the clause III:Clause-initial position (wh-movement)
- Introduction
- 11.1. The formation of V1- and V2-clauses
- 11.2. Clause-initial position remains (phonetically) empty
- 11.3. Clause-initial position is filled
- 12 Word order in the clause IV:Postverbal field (extraposition)
- 13 Word order in the clause V: Middle field (scrambling)
- 14 Main-clause external elements
-
Nouns and Noun Phrases
- 1 Characterization and classification
-
2 Projection of noun phrases I: complementation
- Introduction
- 2.1. General observations
- 2.2. Prepositional and nominal complements
- 2.3. Clausal complements
- 2.4. Bibliographical notes
-
3 Projection of noun phrases II: modification
- Introduction
- 3.1. Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers
- 3.2. Premodification
-
3.3. Postmodification
- 3.3.1. Adpositional phrases
- 3.3.2. Relative clauses
- 3.3.3. Infinitival clauses
- 3.3.4. A special case: clauses referring to a proposition
- 3.3.5. Adjectival phrases
- 3.3.6. Adverbial postmodification
- 3.4. Bibliographical notes
-
4 Projection of noun phrases III: binominal constructions
- Introduction
- 4.1. Binominal constructions without a preposition
- 4.2. Binominal constructions with a preposition
- 4.3. Bibliographical notes
-
5 Determiners: articles and pronouns
- Introduction
- 5.1. Articles
- 5.2. Pronouns
- 5.3. Bibliographical notes
- 6 Numerals and quantifiers
-
7 Pre-determiners
- Introduction
- 7.1. The universal quantifier al 'all' and its alternants
- 7.2. The pre-determiner heel 'all/whole'
- 7.3. A note on focus particles
- 7.4. Bibliographical notes
- 8 Syntactic uses of noun phrases
-
Adjectives and Adjective Phrases
- 1 Characteristics and classification
- 2 Projection of adjective phrases I: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adjective phrases II: Modification
- 4 Projection of adjective phrases III: Comparison
- 5 Attributive use of the adjective phrase
- 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase
- 7 The partitive genitive construction
- 8 Adverbial use of the adjective phrase
- 9 Participles and infinitives: their adjectival use
- 10 Special constructions
-
Adpositions and adpositional phrases
-
1 Characteristics and classification
- Introduction
- 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition
- 1.2. A formal classification of adpositional phrases
-
1.3. A semantic classification of adpositional phrases
- 1.3.1. Spatial adpositions
- 1.3.2. Temporal adpositions
- 1.3.3. Non-spatial/temporal prepositions
- 1.4. Borderline cases
- 1.5. Bibliographical notes
- 2 Projection of adpositional phrases: Complementation
- 3 Projection of adpositional phrases: Modification
- 4 Syntactic uses of the adpositional phrase
- 5 R-pronominalization and R-words
-
1 Characteristics and classification
-
Phonology
-
Frisian
- General
-
Phonology
- Segment inventory
- Phonotactics
-
Phonological Processes
- Assimilation
- Vowel nasalization
- Syllabic sonorants
- Final devoicing
- Fake geminates
- Vowel hiatus resolution
- Vowel reduction introduction
- Schwa deletion
- Schwa insertion
- /r/-deletion
- d-insertion
- {s/z}-insertion
- t-deletion
- Intrusive stop formation
- Breaking
- Vowel shortening
- h-deletion
- Replacement of the glide w
- Word stress
- Clitics
- Allomorphy
- Orthography of Frisian
-
Morphology
- Inflection
-
Word formation
-
Derivation
- Prefixation
- Infixation
-
Suffixation
- Nominal suffixes
- Verbal suffixes
- Adjectival suffixes
- Adverbial suffixes
- Numeral suffixes
- Interjectional suffixes
- Onomastic suffixes
- Conversion
-
Derivation
-
Syntax
-
Verbs and Verb Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Unergative and unaccusative subjects
- Evidentiality
- To-infinitival clauses
- Predication and noun incorporation
- Ellipsis
- Imperativus-pro-Infinitivo
- Expression of irrealis
- Embedded Verb Second
- Agreement
- Negation
-
Nouns & Noun Phrases
- Classification
- Complementation
- Modification
-
Partitive noun constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Nominalised quantifiers
- Kind partitives
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Bare nominal attributions
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers and (pre)determiners
- Interrogative pronouns
- R-pronouns
- Syntactic uses
-
Adjective Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification and degree quantification
-
Comparison by degree
- Comparative
- Superlative
- Equative
-
Attribution
- Agreement
- Attributive adjectives vs. prenominal elements
- Complex adjectives
- Noun ellipsis
- Co-occurring adjectives
- Predication
- Partitive adjective constructions
- Adverbial use
- Participles and infinitives
-
Adposition Phrases
- Characteristics and classification
- Complementation
- Modification
- Intransitive adpositions
- Predication
- Preposition stranding
-
Verbs and Verb Phrases
-
Afrikaans
- General
-
Phonology
- Afrikaans phonology
-
Segment inventory
-
Overview of Afrikaans vowels
- The diphthongised long vowels /e/, /ø/ and /o/
- The unrounded mid-front vowel /ɛ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /ɑ/
- The unrounded low-central vowel /a/
- The rounded mid-high back vowel /ɔ/
- The rounded high back vowel /u/
- The rounded and unrounded high front vowels /i/ and /y/
- The unrounded and rounded central vowels /ə/ and /œ/
- The diphthongs /əi/, /œy/ and /œu/
-
Overview of Afrikaans consonants
- The bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/
- The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/
- The velar plosives /k/ and /g/
- The bilabial nasal /m/
- The alveolar nasal /n/
- The velar nasal /ŋ/
- The trill /r/
- The lateral liquid /l/
- The alveolar fricative /s/
- The velar fricative /x/
- The labiodental fricatives /f/ and /v/
- The approximants /ɦ/, /j/ and /ʋ/
-
Overview of Afrikaans vowels
-
Word stress
- The phonetic properties of stress
- Primary stress on monomorphemic words in Afrikaans
- Background to primary stress in monomorphemes in Afrikaans
- Overview of the Main Stress Rule of Afrikaans
- The short vowels of Afrikaans
- Long vowels in monomorphemes
- Primary stress on diphthongs in monomorphemes
- Exceptions
- Stress shifts in place names
- Stress shift towards word-final position
- Stress pattern of reduplications
-
Phonological processes
- Vowel related processes
- Consonant related processes
- Homorganic glide insertion
- Phonology-morphology interface
- Phonotactics
- Morphology
-
Syntax
- Afrikaans syntax
-
Nouns and noun phrases
- Characteristics of the NP
- Classification of nouns
- Complementation of NPs
- Modification of NPs
-
Binominal and partitive constructions
- Referential partitive constructions
- Partitive measure nouns
- Numeral partitive constructions
- Partitive question constructions
- Partitive constructions with nominalised quantifiers
- Partitive predication with prepositions
- Binominal name constructions
- Binominal genitive constructions
- Bare nominal attribution
- Articles and names
- Pronouns
- Quantifiers, determiners and predeterminers
- Syntactic uses of the noun phrase
-
Adjectives and adjective phrases
- Characteristics and classification of the AP
- Complementation of APs
- Modification and Degree Quantification of APs
- Comparison by comparative, superlative and equative degree
- Attribution of APs
- Predication of APs
- The partitive adjective construction
- Adverbial use of APs
- Participles and infinitives as adjectives
-
Verbs and verb phrases
- Characterisation and classification
- Argument structure
- Verb frame alternations
- Complements of non-main verbs
- Verb clusters
- Complement clauses
- Adverbial modification
- Word order in the clause: Introduction
- Word order in the clause: position of the finite Verb
- Word order in the clause: Clause-initial position
- Word order in the clause: Extraposition and right-dislocation in the postverbal field
- Word order in the middle field
- Emphatic constructions
- Adpositions and adposition phrases
This section discusses left dislocation (henceforth LD). In Dutch, two different types of left-dislocation constructions can be distinguished, which are illustrated in example (31). The first type, which is often referred to as hanging-topic LD, can also be found in English but the second type is characteristic of Dutch and German; it is often referred to as contrastive LD because the left-dislocated phrase is typically assigned contrastive accent (indicated by small caps); some (but not all) speakers also allow this construction without contrastive accent.
a. | Jan, | ik | heb | hem | niet | gezien. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan | I | have | him | not | seen | |||
'Jan, I havenʼt seen him.' |
b. | Jan, | die | heb | ik | niet | gezien. |
contrastive LD
|
|
Jan | dem | have | I | not | seen | |||
'Jan, I havenʼt seen him.' |
We refer to Van Riemsdijk (1997) and Alexiadou (2006) for introductions to the various forms of LD which are found cross-linguistically;
we will confine our discussion here to the two types in (31), which we will refer to by means of the names used by Van Riemsdijk (and which are
used in a slightly different way by Alexiadou).
The discussion of LD is organized as follows. Subsection I starts with a general introduction to LD and argues that left-dislocated elements,
such as the noun phrase
Jan in (31), are external to the main clause and are only interpreted as a constituent of the
sentence by virtue of being the antecedent of a “resumptive” element in the sentence,
such as the referential pronoun
hem'him' and the demonstrative pronoun
die'that'. Subsections II and III discuss in more detail properties of, respectively, left-dislocated and resumptive
elements. Subsections IV through VI focus more specifically on the derivation of contrastive LD-constructions and provide
a number of arguments in favor of assuming that sentence-initial resumptive elements
such as the pronoun
die in (31b) are
wh-moved from some clause-internal position. Subsection VII discusses the old but still unsettled question as to whether topicalization should
be analyzed as a special case of LD. Subsection VIII concludes with a brief review of number of theoretical approaches aiming to account
for the differences between hanging-topic and contrastive LD. This section will not
discuss cases of left-dislocated clauses; the reader is referred to Section 10.3 for relevant discussion.
LD-constructions are characterized by the fact that left-dislocated phrases are associated with a resumptive element. If we restrict ourselves for the moment to cases such as (32) with a left-dislocated noun phrase, we observe that the resumptive element preferably takes the form of a referential personal pronoun such as hem'him' if it is in clause-internal position, but that it takes the form of a distal demonstrative personal pronoun such as die'that' if it is in clause-initial position. The main verbs in these constructions cannot semantically license both the left-dislocated and the resumptive element by assigning them a thematic role. Since the resumptive pronoun is clearly the recipient of the available thematic role, it is traditionally assumed that the left-dislocated constituent does not occupy a clause-internal position but is instead base-generated in clause-external position, as indicated by the structures in (32); the left-dislocated constituent should then be semantically licensed by functioning as the antecedent of the resumptive element (indicated here by co-indexing).
a. | Jani, [clause | ik | heb | hemi | nog | niet | gezien]. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan | I | have | him | yet | not | seen | |||
'Jan, I havenʼt seen him yet.' |
b. | Jani, [clause | diei | heb | ik | nog | niet | gezien]. |
contrastive LD
|
|
Jan | dem | have | I | yet | not | seen | |||
'Jan, I havenʼt seen him yet.' |
That the left-dislocated element must be licensed by functioning as the antecedent of a resumptive element can be demonstrated by the unacceptability of examples such as (33), in which no suitable resumptive pronoun is available. We refer the reader to Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997:26) for discussion; there are a number of errors in the published version of this paper (like missing asterisks), which we have tacitly corrected in the discussion below.
* | Jani, [clause | ik | heb | haarj | nog | niet | gezien]. | |
Jan | I | have | her | yet | not | seen | ||
'Jan, I havenʼt seen her yet.' |
There are various empirical arguments in favor of the hypothesis that left-dislocated constituents are clause-external. First and foremost, it explains why the two types of LD-constructions in (31) are special in allowing the finite verb to be preceded by two constituents: as left-dislocated elements are clause-external they do not count for the verb-second restriction; the representations in (32) are therefore in perfect accord with this restriction. Second, the hypothesis is supported by the fact that polar elements ja'yes' and nee'no' can follow the left-dislocated constituent; under the standard assumption discussed in Section 14.1, sub III, that ja and nee cannot occur clause-internally, the left-dislocated phrases in (34) must be clause-external as well. We will return to cases like these in Subsection VII.
a. | Jani, | nee, | ik heb hemi | niet | gezien. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan | no | I have him | not | seen | |||
'Jan, no, I havenʼt seen him.' |
b. | Jani, | nee, | diei | heb | ik | niet | gezien. |
contrastive LD
|
|
Jan | no | dem | have | I | not | seen | |||
'Jan, no, I havenʼt seen him.' |
Third, the hypothesis that left-dislocated constituents are clause-external provides a simple account for the fact that LD is a typical root phenomenon, that is, cannot apply in embedded contexts: complement clauses cannot be preceded by a left-dislocated constituent. For completeness’ sake, observe that the (b)-examples are unacceptable both with and without the complementizer dat'that'.
a. | Ik geloof | [dat | zij | Jan/hem | nog | niet | gezien | heeft]. | |
I believe | that | she | Jan/him | yet | not | seen | has | ||
'I believe that she hasnʼt seen Jan/him yet.' |
b. | * | Ik geloof | [Jani | [(dat) zij | hemi | nog | niet | gezien | heeft]]. |
hanging-topic LD
|
I believe | Jan | that she | him | yet | not | seen | has |
b'. | * | Ik | geloof | [Jani | [diei | (dat) | zij ti | nog | niet | gezien | heeft]]. |
contrastive LD
|
I | believe | Jan | dem | that | she | yet | not | seen | has |
Salverda (2000:102) claims that embedded contrastive left-dislocation is acceptable in spoken Dutch if the left-dislocated element and the resumptive pronoun are placed after the complementizer dat'that', as in (36b), but we agree with Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997:13) that this pattern is not acceptable in the standard language; the same holds for the corresponding hanging-topic construction in (36a). The use of the asterisks in (36) is not meant to express that the patterns in (36) cannot be found in certain varieties of spoken Dutch. In fact, we expect them to be possible in the regional variety of Dutch spoken in Friesland, because Frisian does allow (some sort of) embedded contrastive LD; we refer the reader to De Haan (2010: Section 5.3) for examples and discussion.
a. | * | Ik geloof | [dat | Jani, | zij | heeft | hemi | niet | gezien]. |
hanging-topic LD
|
I believe | that | Jan | she | has | him | not | seen |
b. | * | Ik geloof | [dat | Jani, | diei | heeft | zij | niet | gezien]. |
contrastive LD
|
I believe | that | Jan | dem | has | she | not | seen |
Example (35a) can be the input for LD if the left-dislocated element is situated to the left of the complete sentence, as shown by the examples in (37). That Jan can be construed as the object of the embedded clause in (37a) is not surprising given that it is normal for the resumptive referential pronoun hem to take a non-local antecedent, that is, an antecedent that is not part of its own clause. That it can be construed as the object of the embedded clause in (37b) as well can be accounted for by assuming that the resumptive demonstrative pronoun is extracted from the embedded clause by means of wh-movement, which we have indicated by means of the trace ti. Evidence that wh-movement is involved in contrastive (but not hanging topic) LD will be given in Subsection IV.
a. | Jani, | [Ik | geloof | [dat | zij | hemi | nog | niet | gezien | heeft]]. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan | I | believe | that | she | him | yet | not | seen | has | |||
'Jan, I believe she hasnʼt seen him yet.' |
b. | Jani, | [diei | geloof | ik | [dat | zij ti | nog | niet | gezien | heeft]]. |
contrastive LD
|
|
Jan | dem | believe | I | that | she | yet | not | seen | has | |||
'Jan, I believe she hasnʼt seen him yet.' |
Hanging-topic and contrastive LD do not allow stacking in Dutch; note that changing the order of the left-dislocated phrases in (38) will not affect the acceptability judgments. It is not clear how to account for this fact given that some of the types of LD found in other languages do allow stacking; see Alexiadou (2006) for discussion.
a. | * | Jani, | dit boekj [clause | ik | heb | hetj | hemi | gegeven]. |
2 x hanging-topic LD
|
Jan | this book | I | have | it | him | given |
b. | * | Jani, | dit boekj [clause | diei | heeft | datj | niet | gelezen]. |
2x contrastive LD
|
Jan | this book | dem | have | dem | not | read |
Combining hanging-topic LD and contrastive LD, on the other hand, is possible; see Zaenen (1997). Observe that the hanging topic in the examples in (39) must precede the contrastively left-dislocated phrase. Inversion of the order of the left-dislocated phrases in (39) gives rise to a severely degraded result. This means that hanging topics can never separate a contrastively dislocated phrase from its wh-moved demonstrative correlate in sentence-initial position, despite the fact illustrated in (34b) that other clause-external material can intervene between these elements.
a. | Jani, | dit boekj, [clause | datj | heeft | hiji | niet | gelezen]. |
HT + contr. LD
|
|
Jan | this book | dem | has | he | not | read |
b. | * | Dit boekj, | Jani, [clause | diei | heeft | hetj | niet | gelezen]. |
HT + contr. LD
|
this book | Jan | dem | has | it | not | read |
Finally, observe that examples such as (40) are acceptable. Given the generalization that hanging topics precede contrastively left-dislocated phrases, example (40a) might perhaps be analyzed in the same way as (39a), with two independently left-dislocated phrases, a hanging topic followed by a contrastively left-dislocated phrase. A similar analysis is, however, less likely for example (40b), because (38b) has shown that stacking of contrastively dislocated phrases is excluded.
a. | Jani, | [dat | zij | hemi | nog | niet | gezien | heeft]j, | datj | geloof | ik | niet tj. | |
Jan | that | she | him | yet | not | seen | has | that | believe | I | not | ||
'Jan, I don't believe that she hasnʼt seen him yet.' |
b. | Jani, | [dat | zij | diei | nog | niet | gezien | heeft]j, | datj | geloof | ik | niet tj. | |
Jan | that | she | dem | yet | not | seen | has | that | believe | I | not | ||
'Jan, I don't believe that she hasnʼt seen him yet.' |
This seems to leave us no other option than to adopt the analysis of (40b) in Haeseryn et al. (1997:1390), according to which Jan is left-dislocated to the object clause, as in the structure indicated in (41b). If correct, it is natural to assume a similar analysis for (40a), that is, with the hanging-topic left-dislocated to the object clause, as indicated in (41a). This is quite surprising in light of our earlier conclusion drawn on the basis of the (b)-examples in (35) that complement clauses cannot be preceded by a left-dislocated constituent: we have to conclude that this is possible after all, but only if they are left-dislocated themselves.
a. | [Jani, [dat zij hemi nog niet gezien heeft]]j, datj geloof ik niet tj. |
b. | [Jani, [dat zij diei nog niet gezien heeft]]j, datj geloof ik niet tj. |
A similar analysis is plausible for the examples in (42), with a left-dislocated conditional clause. More examples of this type can be found in Paardekooper (1986:417).
a. | [Jani, | [als | hiji | blijft | zeuren]]j, | danj | ga | ik | weg. | |
Jan | if | he | remains | nagging | then | go | I | away | ||
'Jan, if he remains nagging, I will leave.' |
b. | [Jani, | [als | diei | blijft | zeuren]]j, | danj | ga | ik | weg. | |
Jan | if | dem | remains | nagging | then | go | I | away | ||
'Jan, if he remains nagging, I will leave.' |
Note that the resumptive demonstrative
die is not in the initial position of the object clause in (41b)/(42b); this is not unexpected as Subsection IV will show that the demonstrative can remain in situ if topicalization is excluded for independent reasons.
Semantically, the two types of left-dislocation constructions can be characterized
by saying that the sentence is “about” the left-dislocated complement but they differ
in that hanging-topic constructions are normally not contrastive. This can be illustrated
in the coordination of LD-constructions by the conjunction
maar'but', which imposes an opposition between the two conjuncts: example (43a) is acceptable only if the resumptive object pronoun
hem'him' is assigned contrastive accent, while the resumptive demonstrative
die in (43b) does not need any special marking (although it should be noted that it is accented
in any case).
a. | Jan, | ik | heb | hem/*ʼm | niet | gezien, maar | Marie wel. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan, | I | have him/him | not | seen | but | Marie aff | |||
'Jan, I havenʼt seen him but I did see Marie.' |
b. | Jani, | diei | heb | ik | niet | gezien, | maar | Marie wel. |
contrastive LD
|
|
Jan | dem | have | I | not | seen | but | Marie aff | |||
'Jan, I havenʼt seen him but I did see Marie.' |
The previous subsection has already shown that noun phrases may occur both in hanging-topic and contrastive LD-constructions. The examples in (44) show that such left-dislocated nominal phrases can be associated with a resumptive pronoun with the function of subject, (in)direct object, and the nominal part of a PP-object. It may be the case that some speakers prefer the contrastive left-dislocation construction in the case of a subject, but both constructions seem fully acceptable.
a. | Jani, [clause | hiji | is niet aanwezig]. |
subject; hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan | he | is not present |
a'. | Jani, [clause | diei | is niet aanwezig]. |
subject; contrastive LD
|
|
Jan | dem | is not present | |||
'Jan, he isnʼt present.' |
b. | Dit boeki, [clause | ik | geef | heti | aan Peter]. |
DO; hanging-topic LD
|
|
this book | I | give | it | to Peter |
b'. | Dit boeki, [clause | dati | geef | ik | aan Peter]. |
DO; contrastive LD
|
|
this book | dem | give | I | to Peter | |||
'This book, Iʼll give it to Peter.' |
c. | Peteri, [clause | ik | geef | hemi | dit boek]. |
IO; hanging-topic LD
|
|
Peter | I | give | him | this book |
c'. | Peteri, [clause | diei | geef | ik | dit boek]. |
IO; contrastive LD
|
|
Peter | dem | give | I | this book | |||
'Peter, Iʼll give him this book.' |
d. | Jani, | ik | wacht | niet | langer [PP | op hemi]. |
PO; hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan, | I | wait | no | longer | for him |
d'. | Jani, | daari | wacht | ik | niet | langer [PPti | op]. |
PO; contrastive LD
|
|
Jan, | there | wait | I | not | longer | for | |||
'Jan, I wonʼt wait for him any longer.' |
Left-dislocated nominal phrases can also be associated with resumptive pronouns originating in a more deeply embedded position. This is illustrated in (45) for respectively, a nominal complement and the nominal part of PP-complement of a complementive AP. We refer the reader to Subsection V for a discussion of cases in which the resumptive pronouns originates in an embedded clause.
a. | Jani, | ik | ben [AP | hemi | beu]. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
Jan | I | am | him | fed.up |
a'. | Jani, | die | ben | ik [APti | beu]. | ||
Jan | dem | am | I | fed.up |
contrastive LD
|
||
'Jan, I am fed up with him.' |
b. | Dat gezeuri, | ik | word | eri [AP | moe [PPti | van]]. |
hanging-topic
LD
|
|
that nagging | I | become | there | tired | of |
b'. | Dat gezeuri, | daar | word | ik [AP | moe [PPti | van]]. |
contrastive LD
|
|
that nagging | that | become | I | tired | if | |||
'That nagging, I am getting tired of it.' |
The primed examples in (46) show that in contrastive LD-constructions the left-dislocated element can also be an AP, a PP or a verbal projection. Zaenen (1997) claims that hanging-topic LD-constructions give rise to degraded results in these cases but there appears to be speaker variation in this respect, which we indicated by means of the percentage sign.
a. | % | [Erg slim]i, | hij | is | heti | niet. |
AP (complementive)
|
very smart | he | is | it | not |
a'. | [Erg slim]i, | dati | is hij | niet ti. | |
very smart | dem | is he | not | ||
'Very smart, he is not.' |
b. | % | [In Amsterdam]i, | ik | heb | eri | gewerkt. |
PP (adverbial)
|
in Amsterdam | I | have | there | worked |
b'. | [In Amsterdam]i, | daari | heb | ik ti | gewerkt. | |
in Amsterdam | there | have | I | worked | ||
'In Amsterdam, I have worked there.' |
c. | % | [Boeken | gekocht]i, | ik | heb | heti | niet. |
VP (lexical projection main verb)
|
books | bought | I | have | that | not |
c'. | [Boeken | gekocht]i, | dati | heb | ik | niet ti. | |
books | bought | that | have | I | not | ||
'I havent bought books.' |
The examples in (44) and (46) also show that left-dislocated phrases can be antecedents of resumptive elements
having different syntactic functions in the case of contrastive left-dislocation:
the examples in the previous subsection have shown that they can be antecedents of
resumptive demonstratives that function as arguments, and the examples above show
that the resumptive may also be a complementive (46a), an adverbial phrase (46b), and can even replace part of the lexical projection of the main verb (46c). The markedness of the primeless examples in (46) suggests that the left-dislocated phrases in hanging-topic LD-construction are normally
antecedents of pronominal arguments.
Saying that left-dislocated phrases can be nominal is not very precise given that
there are various additional restrictions on left dislocation of noun phrases. Furthermore,
hanging-topic and contrastive constructions seem to differ in that the left-dislocated
element must be definite in the former but not in the latter.
a. | Het/*Een boek van Reve, | ik | heb | het | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
the/a book by Reve | I | have | it | read | |||
'The/a book by Reve, I have read it.' |
b. | Het/%Een boek van Reve, | dat | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
|
the/a book by Reve | dem | have | I | read | |||
'The/a book by Reve, I have read that.' |
The use of the percentage sign in (47b) is motivated by the fact that Zaenen (1997) gives a similar example as marked. It seems to us that judgments may differ from case to case, perhaps depending on to whether or not the indefinite noun phrase allows a specific interpretation, that is, depending on whether the speaker is able to identify the referent of the noun phrase. This would in fact be in keeping with Zaenen’s (1997:142) specificity requirement, according to which contrastive LD “can only be used felicitously when the speaker has a “recoverable” referent in mind for the initial constituent”. In accordance with this, left-dislocated noun phrases are often introduced by a D-linked demonstrative like dit/ dat'this/that' and referential possessive noun phrase. As expected, there does not seem to be any contrast between hanging-topic and contrastive LD in such cases.
a. | Dat/Je boek van Reve, | ik | heb | het | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
that/your book by Reve | I | have | it | read | |||
'That/Your book by Reve, I have read it.' |
b. | Dat/Je boek van Reve, | dat | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
|
that/your book by Reve | dem | have | I | read | |||
'That/Your book by Reve, I have read that.' |
The acceptability of left-dislocated weak quantified noun phrases depends on the quantifier; Zaenen (1997:141) shows that negative articles such as geen'no' also block contrastive LD, while determiners like vele'many' en enkele'some' at least marginally allow contrastive (but not hanging topic) LD.
a. | * | Geen boek van Reve, | ik | heb | het | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
no book by Reve | I | have | it | read |
a'. | * | Geen boek van Reve, | dat | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
no book by Reve | dem | have | I | read |
b. | * | Vele/Enkele boeken | van Reve, | ik | heb | ze | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
many/some books | by Reve | I | have | them | read |
b'. | ?? | Vele/Enkele boeken | van Reve, | die | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
many/some books | by Reve | dem | have | I | read |
Zaenen also claims contrastive left-dislocation of strong quantified noun phrases introduced by alle'all', elk ( e )'each' and de meeste'most' to be possible, but to our ear such cases seem somewhat marked, which we express in (50) by means of a single question mark; see also Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997:fn.5), who reject examples like (50a'). The hanging-topic constructions all seem more degraded than the corresponding contrastive LD-constructions; cf. Vat (1997). Note that the judgments given here diverge somewhat from those in Vat, which may be related to the fact that Vat somewhat idealizes the data for the sake of simplicity (see Vat’s remark on p.71).
a. | ?? | Alle boeken van Reve, | ik | heb | ze | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
all books by Reve | I | have | them | read |
a'. | ? | Alle boeken van Reve, | die | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
all books by Reve | dem | have | I | read |
b. | ?? | De meeste boeken van Reve, | ik | heb | ze | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
the most books by Reve | I | have | them | read |
b'. | ? | De meeste boeken van Reve, | die | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
the most books by Reve | dem | have | I | read |
c. | ?? | Elk boek van Reve, | ik | heb | het | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
each book by Reve | I | have | it | read |
c'. | ? | Elk boek van Reve, | dat | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
each book by Reve | dem | have | I | read |
It must be obvious, however, that passing judgments is a somewhat delicate matter because the (a)- and (b)-examples in (50) compete with the even more natural examples in (51). In the (a)-examples quantification is expressed by the floating quantifier allemaal'all' and in the (b)-examples by the determiner of a nominal phrase pied-piped by the resumptive element er. We therefore want to stress that (as always) the diacritics on the examples in (47) to (51) express relative and not absolute judgments.
a. | De boeken van Reve, | ik heb | ze | allemaal | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
the books by Reve | I have | them | all | read |
a'. | De boeken van Reve, | die | heb | ik | allemaal | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
|
the books by Reve | dem | have | I | all | read |
b. | De boeken van Reve, | ik heb | de meeste ervan | gelezen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
the books by Reve | I have | the most of.them | read |
b'. | De boeken van Reve, | de meeste ervan | heb | ik | gelezen. |
contrastive LD
|
|
the books by Reve | the most of.them | have | I | read |
The discussion above shows that left dislocation of noun phrases provides the best result if the left-dislocated noun phrase is referential: quantified noun phrases are always marked compared to definite noun phrases introduced by a definite article, or a definite demonstrative/possessive pronoun. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that left dislocation of non-referential noun phrases is not possible; see Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997) and Vat (1997), although the latter provides a number of cases in note 5 that they claim to allow contrastive LD. We illustrate this in (52) by means of the idiomatic expression ergens de ballen van geloven with the non-referential nominal phrase de ballen; observe that we have added the asterisk, which was accidentally omitted from the published version.
a. | Ik | geloof | er | de ballen | van. | |
I | believe | there | the balls | of | ||
'I donʼt believe a word of it.' |
b. | * | De ballen, | ik | geloof | ze | er | van. |
hanging-topic LD
|
the balls | I | believe | them | there | of |
b'. | * | De ballen, | die | geloof | ik | er van. |
contrastive LD
|
the balls | dem | believe | I | there of |
In other cases, LD results in the loss of the idiomatic interpretation: the number signs in the (b)-examples in (53) indicate that only the literal transmission reading survives in LD-constructions.
a. | Jan geeft | de pijp | aan Maarten. | |
Jan gives | the pipe | to Maarten | ||
Idiomatic reading: 'Jan is dying.' |
b. | # | De pijp, | Jan geeft | hem | aan Maarten. |
hanging-topic LD
|
the pipe | Jan gives | him | to Maarten |
b'. | # | De pijp, | die | geeft | Jan aan Maarten. |
contrastive LD
|
the pipe, | dem | gives | Jan to Maarten |
The claim that left-dislocated phrases must be referential also accounts for the fact noticed by Zaenen (1997) that wh-phrases cannot be left-dislocated. This is illustrated in the examples in (54), which show that interrogative phrases differ sharply in this respect from demonstrative phrases.
a. | * | Wie/Welke man, | ik | heb | hem | niet | gezien. |
hanging-topic LD
|
who/which man | I | have | him | not | seen |
a'. | Die/Deze (man), | ik | heb | hem | niet | gezien. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
this/that man | I | have | him | not | seen |
b. | * | Wie/Welke man, | die | heb | ik | niet | gezien. |
contrastive LD
|
who/which man | dem | have | I | not | seen |
b'. | Die/Deze (man), | die | heb | ik | niet | gezien. |
contrastive LD
|
|
this/that man | dem | have | I | not | seen |
Another case that may show the same is LD of reflexive and reciprocal personal pronouns, as such pronouns are not inherently referential but depend on an antecedent for their reference. Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997) as well as Vat (1997) suggest, however, that the unacceptability of the examples in (55) might also be attributed to problems related to binding. An updated version of this proposal would attribute it to the fact that the resumptive pronouns hen'them' and die must take the subject zij'they' as a local antecedent in order to satisfy the binding conditions on elkaar'each other', which results in a violation of the binding conditions that they must satisfy themselves (i.e., that they must be free in their local domain); note that the binding conditions for the resumptive pronoun die in (55b) should be computed from its original object position indicated by a trace. We refer the reader to Section N5.2.1.5 for a more extensive discussion of the binding conditions.
a. | * | Elkaari, | ziji | respecteren | heni | niet. |
hanging-topic LD
|
each.other | they | respect | them | not |
b. | * | Elkaari, | diei | respecteren | ziji·ti | niet. |
contrastive LD
|
each.other | dem | respect | they | not |
The account of the unacceptability of the examples in (55) can be supported for the contrastive LD-construction in (55b) by the fact that example (56b) is fully acceptable, which can be made to follow from the fact that the resumptive pronoun die is not bound by the subject z ij in this case. This leaves us with the question as to why (56a) is still unacceptable. This is related to the “connectedness” hypothesis proposed in Vat (1997), according to which the hanging-topic and the contrastive LD-construction differ in that only the latter allow left-dislocated phrases to be interpreted as if they occupy the position of the resumptive pronoun; this means that the reciprocal elkaar'each other' is correctly bound in its local domain in (56b), but not in (56a).
a. | * | [Elkaarsi | jassen]j, | ziji | dragen | zej | niet | graag. |
hanging-topic LD
|
each.otherʼs | coats | they | wear | them | not | happily |
b. | [Elkaarsi | jassen]j, | diej | dragen | zijitj | niet | graag. |
contrastive LD
|
|
each.otherʼs | coats | dem | wear | them | not | gladly | |||
'Each otherʼs coats, they do not like to wear them.' |
More evidence for this “connectedness” hypothesis is provided by examples such as (57) in which the indices indicate that pronouns embedded in left-dislocated phrases only allow a bound-variable reading in contrastive LD-constructions: whereas the hanging topic in (57a) must refer to a certain person’s mother, who is liked by everyone, the contrastively LD-construction in (57b) in addition allows an interpretation according to which everyone likes his own mother; see also Zaenen (1997). For a more extensive discussion of the “connectedness” hypothesis (partly based on evidence from German), we refer to Vat (1997) and Ott (2014).
a. | [Zijnk/*i moeder]j, | iedereeni | vindt | haarj | aardig. |
hanging-topic LD
|
|
his mother | everyone | considers | her | kind | |||
'His mother, everyone likes her.' |
b. | [Zijnk/imoeder]j, | diej | vindt | iedereenitj | aardig. |
contrastive LD
|
|
his mother | dem | considers | everyone | kind | |||
'His mother, everyone likes her.' |
It has also been claimed that referential pronouns such as hem'him' cannot be left-dislocated; cf. Zwart (1997:249). If true, this would be a surprising fact given that there does not appear to be any obvious reason why this should be the case. It seems to us, however, that with sufficient context such cases are quite acceptable (see the answers to question (58a)), but we will leave it to future research to establish more exactly the acceptability status of such examples.
a. | Ik ben op zoek naar Peter maar kan hem niet vinden. Heb jij hem gezien? | |
'I am looking for Peter but I cannot find him. Have you seen him?' |
b. | % | Hem, | nee, | ik | heb | hem | niet | gezien. |
hanging-topic LD
|
him | no | I | have | him | not | seen | |||
'Him, no, I havenʼt seen him.' |
b'. | % | Hem, | nee, | die | heb ik niet gezien. |
contrastive LD
|
him | no | dem | have I not seen | |||
'Him, no, I havenʼt seen him.' |
It has further been claimed more specifically that first and second person pronouns cannot be left-dislocated; cf. De Wit (1997). Although such pronouns indeed seem to give rise to a marked result if they are used as hanging topics, we have the impression that they can comfortably be used in contrastive LD-constructions. We therefore mark the primed examples in (59) with a percentage sign, and leave it to future research to determine more precisely their acceptability status.
a. | *? | Mij, | Peter wil | mij | niet | meer | helpen. |
hanging-topic LD
|
me | Peter wants | me | not | more | help |