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).

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

      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.

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.

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.

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 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).

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).