/ instituut voor de Nederlandse taal / Taalportaal
bibliography glossary about
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
    14.2.Left dislocation
    quickinfo

    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.

    31
    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.

    readmore
    [+]  I.  General properties

    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).

    32
    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.

    33
    * 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.

    34
    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'.

    35
    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.

    36
    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.

    37
    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.

    38
    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.

    39
    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.

    40
    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.

    41
    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).

    42
    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).

    43
    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.'
    [+]  II.  The left-dislocated element

    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.

    44
    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.

    45
    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.

    46
    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.

    47
    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.

    48
    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.

    49
    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).

    50
    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