/ instituut voor de Nederlandse taal / Taalportaal
bibliography glossary about
  • Dutch1
  • 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
      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.

    51
    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.

    52
    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.

    53
    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.

    54
    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.

    55
    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 zij 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).

    56
    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).

    57
    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.

    58
    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.

    59
    a. *? Mij, Peter wil mij niet meer helpen.
    hanging-topic LD
      me  Peter wants  me  not  more  help
    a'. % Mij, die wil Peter niet meer helpen.
    contrastive LD
      me  dem   wants  Peter not  more  help
      'Peter doesnʼt want to help me anymore.'
    b. *? Jou, Peter wil jou niet meer helpen.
    hanging-topic LD
      you  Peter wants  you  not  more  help
    b'. % Jou, die wil Peter niet meer helpen.
    contrastive LD
      you dem   wants  Peter not  more  help
      'Peter doesnʼt want to help me anymore.'

    For completeness' sake we note here that hanging-topic LD of pronouns improves greatly if the left-dislocated phrase is a coordinate structure, as in (60). This suggests that the presumed markedness of the primeless examples in (59) may be due to the repetition of identical forms.

    60
    a. [Hem en haar], ik heb ze niet gezien.
      him and her,  I  have  them  not  seen
      'Him and her, I havenʼt seen them.'
    b. [Zij en jij], jullie zijn altijd welkom.
      she and you  you  are  always  welcome
    b'. [Jou en haar], ik heb jullie niet gezien.
      you and her,  I  have  you  not seen
      'You and her, I havenʼt seen you.'
    c. [Jij en ik] we vormen een goed team.
      you and I  we  constitute  a good team
    c'. [Jou en mij], ze willen ons niet helpen.
      you and me they  want  us  not  help
      'You and me, they dont want to help us.'

    Contrastive dislocation seems to improve if a focus marker like zelfs'even' or ook'also' is present.

    61
    a. Hem, nee, <zelfs> die heb ik niet gezien.
      him  no    even  dem  have  I  not  seen
      'Him, no, I even havenʼt seen him.'
    b. Mij, die wil Peter ook niet meer helpen.
      me  dem   wants  Peter also  not  more  help
      'Peter doesnʼt want to help me anymore either.'

    The discussion of the examples in (55) to (61) shows that although LD of pronominal elements may give rise to degraded results, this need not be due to a syntactic restriction on LD: the unacceptability of the examples in (55), for example, may be due to the independently motivated binding conditions, and the judgments on (58) and (59) are not sufficiently clear to draw any firm conclusions and are furthermore affected by various non-syntactic factors that have not been investigated yet. The examples in (61), finally, show that LD of pronominal elements is sometimes fully acceptable.

    [+]  III.  The resumptive element

    The resumptive element in hanging-topic constructions is relatively straightforward: because the construction only gives rise to a fully acceptable result if the left-dislocated element is nominal, it is typically a referential personal pronoun. In the previous subsections, we assumed without discussion that resumptive elements in contrastive LD-constructions with a nominal left-dislocated phrase are D-linked distal demonstrative pronouns. One reason for assuming this is that the resumptive pronouns behave like demonstratives in that they agree in gender and number with their antecedent; see Section N5.2.3.1, sub IA, for a discussion of the paradigm of demonstrative pronouns.

    62
    a. Deze jongen[-neuter, singular], die[-neuter, singular] ken ik niet.
      this boy  dem  know  I  not
      'This boy, I don't know him.'
    a'. Deze jongens[-neuter, plural], die[-neuter, plural] ken ik niet.
      this boy  dem  know  I  not
      'These boys, I don't know them.'
    b. Dit boek[+neuter, singular], dat[+neuter, singular] lees ik niet.
      this book  dem  read  I  not
      'This book, I wonʼt read it.'
    b'. Deze boeken[+neuter, plural], die[+neuter, plural] lees ik niet.
      these books  dem  read  I  not
      'These books, I wonʼt read them.'

    It should be noted, however, that the agreement pattern in (62) would also allow an analysis of the resumptive pronouns as relative pronouns (cf. Section N5.2.1.4), and it has indeed been suggested that this might be a reasonable line of inquiry; see Van Riemsdijk (1997: Section 4). Given that relative pronouns are obligatorily moved into clause initial position, this would lead us to expect that resumptive pronouns are also obligatorily moved into clause-initial position in contrastive LD-constructions. Subsection IV will show, however, that this expectation is not borne out. Another problem for the suggested analysis is that the resumptive pronouns can be replaced by an epithet like die idioot'that idiot' or dat wijf'that bitch' in (63); cf. Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997) and Zaenen (1997). Analyzing contrastive LD-constructions such as (63b) as relative constructions does not seem possible. Another problematic case adapted from De Vries (2009) is given in (63c), in which the left-dislocated coordinate structure is resumed by the encompassing phrase al die dingen'all those things'.

    63
    a. Peteri, Ik heb net gesproken met die idiooti.
    hanging-topic LD
      Peter,  I  have  just  spoken  with that idiot
    b. Mariei, dat wijfi vermoord ik ti nog eens.
    contrastive LD
      Marie  that bitch  kill  I  yet  once
      'Mary, I will kill that bitch one day.'
    c. [Boeken, CDs en schilderijen]i, al die dingeni boeien me.
    contrastive LD
      books  CDs and paintings all those things  attract  me
      'Books, CDs and painting, all those things fascinate me.'

    A relative clause-like analysis is also unlikely in the light of contrastive LD-constructions such as (64), which are repeated in a slightly different form from Subsection II. Although adjectival complementives and verbal projections can be used as antecedents of (non-restrictive) relative clauses, the relative pronouns would surface as wat not as dat: cf. Jan is erg slim, wat/*dat ik niet ben'Jan is very smart, which I am not' and Jan heeft de boodschappen gedaan, wat/*dat ik vergeten was 'Jan has done the shopping, which I had forgotten'. Furthermore, the relative pronoun that may take a phrase denoting a location as its antecedent is waar not daar; cf. De stad waar/*daar hij woont is Amsterdam'the city where he lives is Amsterdam'. The resumptive elements in (64) thus simply do not have the form expected of a relative element. We refer the reader to Section N3.3.2.2 for a discussion of the form of relative pro-forms in Dutch.

    64
    a. [Erg slim]i, dati/*wati is hij niet ti.
    AP (complementive)
      very smart  that/which  is he  not
      'Very smart, he is not.'
    b. [In Amsterdam]i, daari/*waari heb ik ti gewerkt.
    PP (adverbial)
      in Amsterdam  there/where  have  I  worked
      'In Amsterdam, I have worked there.'
    c. [Boeken gekocht]i, dati/*wati heb ik niet ti.
    lexical projection verb
      books  bought  that/which  have  I  not
      'I haven't bought books.'

    The same holds for contrastive LD-constructions with left-dislocated temporal adverbial phrases: while the resumptive element toen'then' in (65a) can indeed occasionally be found in relative clauses (cf. Section N3.3.2.2, sub IVC), this does not hold for the form dan'then' in (65a'). Locational pro-forms such as daar'there' in constructions such as (65b) cannot be used in relative clauses either and the same holds for the pronominal PP daarmee and the adverbial pro-form zo in (65c&d).

    65
    a. Gisteren, toen was ik ziek.
      yesterday  then was  I  ill
      'Yesterday, I was ill then.'
    a'. Morgen, dan kom ik wat later.
      tomorrow  then  come  I  somewhat  later
      'Tomorrow, I will arrive a bit later.'
    b. In Amsterdam, daar kom ik graag.
      in Amsterdam  there  come  I  gladly
      'Amsterdam, I like to go there.'
    c. Met zo’n oude computer, daarmee kan je toch niet werken.
      with such.an old computer  with.that  can  you  prt  not  work
      'With such an old computer, it is impossible to work.'
    d. Rustig, zo moet je ademen.
      quietly  so must you breathe
      'You should breathe quietly.'

    The discussion above suggests that it is safe to conclude that the resumptive elements in contrastive LD-constructions are distal demonstrative (and not relative) pro-forms; see Haeseryn et al. (1997:1389) for the same conclusion.

    [+]  IV.  Wh-movement

    The previous subsection has argued that it is reasonable to assume that the verb assigns its thematic role to the resumptive pronoun, and, consequently, that the left-dislocated element cannot be licensed within the clause. It implies that a left-dislocated noun phrase must be base-generated external to the clause and receive a semantic interpretation by acting as the antecedent of the resumptive pronoun. The examples in (66) and (67) show, however, that the two types of resumptive pronouns seem to exhibit a differential behavior with respect to wh-movement. Although examples like (66b) are generally not discussed in the literature, our informants indicate that wh-movement of the referential personal pronoun gives rise to at least a marked result.

    66
    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 hemi heb ik ti nog niet gezien].
    contrastive LD
      Jan  him  have  I  yet  not  seen

    The reception of examples such as (67a) is a mixed one: Van Riemsdijk (1997) indicates without any reservation that demonstratives are possible in hanging-topic LD-constructions, Vat (1997:70) claims that, although their acceptability depends on factors that are not well understood, they are grammatical, and Odijk (1998:204) gives them as unacceptable. According to our own intuitions examples like (67a) are acceptable but normally less preferred than examples like (66a).

    67
    a. % Jani [clause ik heb diei nog niet gezien].
    hanging-topic LD
      Jan  I  have  dem  yet  not  seen
    b. Jani [clause diei heb ik ti nog niet gezien].
    contrastive LD
      Jan  dem  have  I  yet  not  seen
      'Jan I havenʼt seen him yet.'

    It is, however, clear that we cannot categorically say that resumptive demonstratives are excluded in the middle field of the clause, as they can remain in situ in constructions that do not allow wh-movement like the yes/no question in (68a) or the imperative construction in (68b); cf. Paardekooper (1986:39), Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997:21), Zaenen (1997), Odijk (1998:205) and Ott (2014:274). The same holds for constructions in which the sentence-initial position must be occupied by some other element, such as wie'who' in the embedded wh-question in (68a'); cf. Paardekooper (1986:39) and Van Riemsdijk (1997:4).

    68
    a. Dat boek, heb je dat/het nog niet gelezen?
    yes/no-question
      that book  have  you  dem/it  yet  not  read
      'That book, havenʼt you read it yet?'
    a'. Dat boek, wie heeft dat/het gelezen?
    wh-question
      that book  who  has  dem/it  read
      'That book, who has read it?'
    b. Dat boek, lees dat/het nou eens!
    imperative
      that book  read  dem/it  prt  prt
      'that book, just read it!'
    [+]  V.  Island-sensitivity

    The previous subsection has shown that resumptive personal pronouns preferably remain in situ if they are referential while the resumptive demonstratives preferably undergo wh-movement if the clause-initial position is available as a landing site. Although this formulation intentionally leaves some room for variation, it seems beyond doubt that the two LD-constructions differ with respect to wh-movement; wh-movement is not involved in the hanging-topic construction while it is involved in the contrastive construction. This is also reflected in the island-sensitivity of the two constructions. The examples in (37), repeated here as (69), show that the hang-topic and contrastive LD-constructions are equally acceptable if the (trace of the) resumptive pronoun is contained in a clausal complement of a bridge verb.

    69
    a. Jani, [Ik denk [dat zij hemi nog niet gezien heeft]].
    hanging-topic LD
      Jan  I  think   that  she  him  yet  not  seen  has
      'Jan, I think she hasnʼt seen him yet.'
    b. Jani, [diei denk ik [dat zij ti nog niet gezien heeft]].
    contrastive LD
      Jan  dem  think  I   that  she  yet  not  seen  have
      'Jan, I think she hasnʼt seen him yet.'

    The acceptability of two constructions differs sharply, however, if the embedded clause is an island for wh-movement. The examples in (70) first illustrate this for interrogative complement clauses (so-called wh-islands): while the hanging-topic LD-constructions in (70a) is fully acceptable, the contrastive LD-constructions in the (70b) is severely degraded.

    70
    a. Jani, [Ik weet niet [wie (of) hemi geholpen heeft]].
    hanging-topic LD
      Jan   I  know  not  who comp  him  helped  has
      'Jan, I donʼt know who has helped him.'
    b. * Jani, [diei weet ik niet [wie (of) ti geholpen heeft]].
    contrastive LD
      Jan  dem  know  I  not   who  comp  helped  has

    The examples in (71) illustrate the same contrast for an adverbial clause, which constitutes a so-called adjunct island. The examples in (72) provide similar cases involving the coordinate structure constraint.

    71
    a. Jani, ik ben bedroefd [omdat ik hemi niet gezien heb].
    hanging-topic LD
      Jan  I  am  sad  because  I  him  not  seen  have
      'Jan, I am sad because I havenʼt seen him.'
    b. * Jani, die ben ik bedroefd [omdat ik ti niet gezien heb].
    contrastive LD
      Jan  dem  am  I  sad  because  I  not  seen  have
    72
    a. Jani, ik heb [hemi en zijn vrouw] niet gezien.
    hanging-topic LD
      Jan,  I  have  him and his wife  not seen
      'Jan, I havenʼt seen him and his wife.'
    b. * Jani, diei, heb ik [ti en zijn vrouw] niet gezien.
    contrastive LD
      Jan  dem  have  I  and his wife  not  seen

    That contrastive LD is island-sensitive follows immediately from the fact that the resumptive demonstrative is subject to wh-movement. That hanging-topic LD is not island-sensitive is due to the fact that referential personal pronouns can generally take any (non-local) discourse-prominent element as their antecedent.

    [+]  VI.  Pied piping and stranding

    The fact that wh-movement of resumptive distal demonstratives is near-obligatory if the sentence-initial position is available, combined with the fact that this movement is island-sensitive, raises the expectation that contrastive LD may trigger pied piping, and this is indeed what we find. In (73a), LD only requires movement of the possessive demonstrative diens but since a prenominal possessor cannot be extracted from its noun phrase, the complete noun phrase diens vader is moved into clause-initial position. In (73b), we see a case in which the demonstrative diens pied-pipes a PP.

    73
    a. Jani, [diensi vader]j heb ik gisteren tj ontmoet.
      Jan   dem  father  have  I  yesterday  met
      'Jan, I met his father yesterday.'
    b. Jani, [op diensi goedkeuring]j wacht ik al een lange tijd tj.
      Jan   for dem approval  wait  I  already  a long time
      'Jan I have been waiting for his approval for a long time.'

    Pied piping of PPs in contrastive LD-constructions is nevertheless less common than in wh-questions due to the fact that -human demonstrative pronouns are virtually exceptionlessly subject to R-pronominalization, while +human interrogative pronouns are not.

    74
    a. op wie[+human] ⇏ waarop
      for who
    a'. op wat[-human] ⇒ waarop
      for what
    b. op die[+human] ⇒ daarop
      for that
    b'. op dat[-human] ⇒ daarop
      for that

    Since regular pronouns like wie cannot be extracted from PP-objects but the prepositional part of pronominal PP-objects is often stranded, we find the following contrast between wh-questions and contrastive LD-constructions.

    75
    a. [Op wie/*wat]i wacht je ti?
    [+human] only
      for who  wait  you
      'Who are you waiting for?'
    a'. Waari wacht je [ti op]?
    [-human] only
      what  wait  you  for
      'What are you waiting for?'
    b. Jani/het boekj, [op ??diei/*datj]k wacht ik tk.
    [+human] marginally possible
      Jan/the book   for that  wait  I
    b'. Jani/het boekj, daari/j wacht ik [ti/j op].
    ±human
      Jan/the book  that  wait  I  for
      'Jan/The book, I am waiting for him/it.'
    [+]  VII.  Topicalization versus contrastive left dislocation

    There is a long tradition that maintains that topicalization is a form of contrastive LD followed by deletion of the wh-moved resumptive demonstrative; more information on this deletion approach can be found in, e.g., Koster (1978), Weerman (1989), Kosmeijer (1993), Zwart (1997:248). Others argue against this proposal. The examples in (76) show, for example, that certain topicalization constructions do not have a LD-counterpart; the (a)-examples with a topicalized modal adverb are taken from Odijk (1995:9) and the (b)-examples with non-referential noun phrases are taken in a slightly adapted form from Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997); we also have added the asterisk which was accidentally omitted from the published version.

    76
    a. Waarschijnlijk komt hij vandaag.
    topicalization
      probably  comes  he  today
      'Probably he will come today.'
    a'. * Waarschijnlijk, dat/daar/... komt hij vandaag.
    contrastive LD
      probably  dem   comes  he  today
    b. De ballen geloof ik er van.
    topicalization
      the balls  believe  I  there  of
      'I donʼt believe a word of it.'
    b'. * De ballen, die geloof ik er van.
    contrastive LD
      the balls  dem  believe  I  there  of

    The same can be illustrated by quantified noun phrases, which were shown in Subsection II to give rise to degraded results in contrastive LD-constructions. We illustrate this in (77) by comparing examples with and without the demonstrative, which should be read, respectively, with and without an intonation break. In example (77a) the noun phrase should be interpreted as specific; topicalization is like contrastive LD in that it does not easily affect non-specific indefinites.

    77
    a. Een boek van Reve (%dat) heb ik al gelezen.
    cf. (47b)
      a book by Reve     dem  have  I  already  read
    b. Geen boek van Reve (*dat) heb ik al gelezen.
    cf. (49a')
      no book by Reve     dem  have  I  already  read
    c. Vele/Enkele boeken van Reve (*die) heb ik al gelezen.
    cf. (49b')
      many/some books by Reve    dem  have  I  already  read
    d. Alle boeken van Reve (??die) heb ik drie keer gelezen.
    cf. (50a')
      all books by Reve   dem  have  I  three times  read
    e. De meeste boeken van Reve (??die) heb ik drie keer gelezen.
    cf. (50b')
      the most books by Reve    dem have  I  three times  read
    f. Elk boek van Reve (?dat) heb ik drie keer gelezen.
    cf. (50c')
      each book by Reve    dem  have  I  three times  read

    The examples in (78) show the same for reflexive and reciprocal pronouns. While contrastive LD of the elements gives rise to degraded results, topicalization is fully acceptable; cf. Van Riemsdijk & Zwarts (1997).

    78
    a. Zichzelf (??die) respecteert hij niet.
      himself    dem  respects  he  not
      'Himself, he doesnʼt respect.'
    b. Elkaar (??die) bewonderen ze zeer.
      each.other    dem  admire  they  much
      'Each other, they admire a lot.'

    Another problematic case for the deletion approach can be seen in (79). The (b)-examples show that while the contrastive LD-construction is fully acceptable, the corresponding topicalization construction is rejected by many speakers; cf. Bennis & Hoekstra (1983:8). The percentage sign indicates once again that topicalization constructions of this type can be found in informal speech; cf. Klooster (1989/2001). The contrast is again unexpected if topicalization is derived by omission of the demonstrative element (here the pronominal part of the discontinuous PP daar .. op); see the introduction to Chapter P5 for more extensive discussion.

    79
    a. Ik ben niet dol op bananen.
      I  am  not  fond  of  bananas
      'I am not fond of bananas.'
    b. Bananen, daar ben ik niet dol op.
    contrastive LD
      bananas,  there  am  I  not  fond  of
      'Bananas, I am not fond of them.'
    b'. % Bananen ben ik niet dol op.
    topicalization
      bananas  am  I  not  fond  of

    Note in passing that topicalization examples such as (79b') should not be confused with fully acceptable instances such as (80a), in which the noun phrase bananen is followed by an intonation break. Barbiers (2007:101) derives such examples as shown in (80b), that is, by means of a combination of contrastive LD and topic drop, which was discussed in Section 11.2.2. The mere fact that the acceptability contrast between (79b') and (80a) exists can be seen as evidence against the deletion approach, although it will also be clear that the existence of the construction in (80a) has considerably obscured the discussion surrounding this hypothesis.

    80
    a. Bananen, ben ik dol op!
      bananas  am  I  fond  of
      'Bananas, I am fond of them.'
    b. Bananen, [daar ben ik dol op].
    contrastive LD + topic drop

    Odijk (1995:9) suggests that the unacceptability of example (81b') is also problematic for the deletion approach given that it is expected that this example can be derived from (81a') by deletion of the pronominal part in clause-initial position. Odijk’s original argument is in fact more intricate, as he claims that (81b) should be unacceptable because it involves deletion of the preposition op in violation of the recoverability condition on deletion; cf. Chomsky & Lasnik (1977).

    81
    a. Op bananen, daarop ben ik niet dol.
    contrastive LD
      of bananas  there.of  am  I  not  fond
      'Bananas, I am not fond of them.'
    a'. Op bananen, daar ben ik niet dol op.
      of bananas  there  am  I  not  fond  of
      'Bananas, I am fond of.'
    b. Op bananen ben ik niet dol.
    topicalization
      of Bananas  am  I  not  fond
      'Bananas I am not fond of.'
    b'. * Op bananen ben ik niet dol op.
      of Bananas  am  I  not  fond  of

    Section 11.3.3, sub VI has shown that we also find acceptability contrasts between constructions with contrastively left-dislocated and topicalized VPs; in order to avoid unnecessary redundancy we simply repeat the result of the discussion given there, and refer the reader to this section for detailed discussion.

    Table 1: Topicalization and left dislocation of clauses and other verbal projections
    topicalization left dislocation
    finite argument (SU, DO)
    argument (PP)     		✓
    *     		✓
    ✓
    adverbial
    adverbial (conditional)     		✓
    ✓     		*
    ✓
    infinitival om + te-infinitive * ✓
    te-infinitives ? ✓
    bare infinitives ✓ ✓
    VP-topicalization past/passive participle ✓ ✓
    te-infinitival ? ?
    bare infinitival (full)
    bare infinitival (remnant)     		✓
    ✓     		✓
    ?

    A final empirical argument against the deletion approach might be built on examples like (82) and (83). Example (82a) first shows that left-dislocated elements can easily be followed by clause-external pragmatic markers like vocatives, the polar element ja/nee'yes/no' or an interjection such as tja'well'; see Haeseryn et al. (1997:1388). The acceptability of (82b) is not so telling, as it can be analyzed either as a topicalization construction or as a contrastive LD construction plus topic drop, since the intonation break is introduced here by the intervening element nee/tja and can thus not be used for distinguishing the construction types; see the discussion of (79b') and (80a). Since we have no other reliable tests up our sleeve, the best we can do at this point is appealing to our intuitions about this case, which point into the direction of a contrastive LD-construction with topic drop. Examples like (82b'), on the other hand, do not permit a topic drop interpretation without an intonation break after the noun phrase dat boek.

    82
    a. Dat boeki, nee/tja, dati is hij natuurlijk vergeten.
    contrastive LD
      that book  no/well  dem  is he  of.course  forgotten
      'That book, no/well, he has forgotten it of course.'
    b. Dat boek, nee/tja, is hij natuurlijk vergeten.
    contrastive LD + topic drop
      that book   no/well  is he of.course forgotten
      'That book, no/well, he has forgotten it of course.'
    b'. Nee/Tja, dat boeki is hij natuurlijk vergeten.
    topicalization
      no/well  that book  is he of.course forgotten
      'No/Well, that book he has forgotten of course.'

    Topicalization constructions such as (76), which do not have a contrastive LD-counterpart, perhaps show more conclusively that topicalized phrases cannot be followed by pragmatic markers like nee'no' and tja'well'. If these constructions were nevertheless to be some kind of contrastive LD-construction, we would expect that they can also precede the element nee/tja. The (a)-examples in (83) show that this expectation is not borne out; topicalized modal adverbs must follow these elements. The (b)-examples illustrate the same for cases in which a non-referential part of an idiomatic expression is preposed.

    83
    a. Nee/Tja, waarschijnlijk is hij het vergeten.
      no/well probably  is  he  it  forgotten
      'No/Well, probably he has forgotten it.'
    a'. * Waarschijnlijk, nee/tja, is hij het vergeten.
      probably  no/well  is he  it  forgotten
    b. Nee/tja, de ballen geloof ik er van.
      no/well  the balls  believe  I  there  of
      'No/well, I donʼt believe a word of it.'
    b'. * De ballen, nee/tja, geloof ik er van.
      the balls  no/well  believe  I  there  of

    The discussion above has shown that despite its continuing appeal, the deletion approach meets a range of challenges; future research will have to show whether these can be met in a satisfactory way.

    [+]  VIII.  Analyses of contrastive left dislocation

    The previous subsections have shown that there are various differences between hanging-topic and contrastive left-dislocation. The (a)-examples in (84) illustrate again the difference in island-sensitivity on the basis of a complex noun phrase: contrastive LD but not hanging-topic LD is sensitive to this type of island. The (b)-examples, which are repeated in a slightly different form from Subsection II, show this for connectivity: while the hanging-topic LD construction does not allow a bound variable reading of the possessive pronoun zijn embedded in the left-dislocated phrase, this reading is available in the contrastive LD construction; the operator-variable relation is indicated by italics.

    84
    a. Jani, ik ken [de man [die hemi geïnterviewd heeft]].
    hanging-topic LD
      Jan  I  know  the man  who  him  interviewed  has
      'Jan, I know the man who has interviewed him.'
    a'. * Jani, diei ken ik [de man [die ti geïnterviewd heeft]].
    contrastive LD
      Jan  dem  know  I  the man  who  interviewed  has
    b. * [Zijn moeder]j, iedereen vindt haarj aardig.
    hanging-topic LD
      his mother everyone  considers  her  kind
    b'. [Zijnmoeder]j, diej vindt iedereentj aardig.
    contrastive LD
      his mother  dem  considers  everyone  kind
      'His mother everyone likes.'

    The lack of island-sensitivity and connectivity in hanging-topic LD constructions follows in a natural way if we assume that left-dislocated phrases are base-generated clause-externally. One option is that each sentence has an additional position that can be filled by left-dislocated phrases; cf. Chomsky (1977). The overall structure of the sentence (≈ main clause) would then be as indicated in (85); the underlining indicates the position that is optionally filled by one or more base-generated left-dislocated phrases.

    85
    [___ [main clause ... ]]

    The island-insensitivity of hanging-topic LD in (84a) now follows trivially from the fact that there is no movement at all. The impossibility of the bound variable reading in (84b) is due to the fact that there is no point in the derivation of the sentence at which the quantifier iedereen and the possessive pronoun zijn'his' are in a c-command relation; the bound variable reading is excluded for the same reason that makes a bound variable reading impossible in two consecutive sentences in a discourse: cf. *Ik zag zijn moeder. Iedereen vindt haar aardig (the intended operator-variable relation is indicated by underlining).
          The island-sensitivity of the contrastive LD construction in (84a') is due to the fact that the demonstrative pronoun is moved into the clause-initial position. However, the fact that the bound variable reading is possible in (84b') still requires various additional ad hoc assumptions, as there is again no point in the derivation of the sentence at which the quantifier iedereen and the pronoun zijn are in a c-command relation. One option might be to assume that the bound variable reading is licensed by the coindexing of the left-dislocated phrase and the wh-moved demonstrative, but this raises the non-trivial question as to why coindexing between a hanging topic and a referential pronoun does not have a similar effect.
          The connectivity effect therefore suggests that the left-dislocated phrase has moved after all. An early proposal of this nature was given in Vat (1997), which was originally published in 1981. Vat claimed that the pronoun and the left-dislocated phrase XP form a constituent in their base position, as indicated in (86a). The full phrase is moved into the clause-initial position, as in (86b), and, finally, XP is moved into the designated position for left-dislocated phrases postulated in (85).

    86
    a. [___ [CP ... C [TP .... [proform + XP] ...]]]
    b. [CP [proform + XP]i C [TP ... ti ...]]
    c. [XPj [CP [proform + tj]i C [TP ... ti ...]]]

    An attractive aspect of this proposal is that we can preserve the verb-second restriction by assuming that extraction from the clause can only proceed via the clause-initial position, a claim that is independently supported by the phenomenon of wh-extraction from embedded clauses; cf. Section 11.3.1.2. A potential problem for the analysis in (86) is, however, that postulation of the complex [pronoun + XP] is highly theory-dependent in the sense that it fashioned after Vergnaud’s (1974) analysis of relative clauses. This was shown to be highly problematic in Section 12.3, although there are a number of more recent incarnations of the same idea which are more plausible; see Grohmann (2003:ch.4) and De Vries (2009) for discussion. Another potential problem for Vat’s analysis is that it predicts that the left-dislocated phrase and the demonstrative pronoun are adjacent, while (87) shows that they can be separated by the polar elements ja/nee'yes/no', interjections and hesitation marker like tja'well' and eh'er', which are generally assumed to be clause-external as well; this suggests that (86c) incorrectly locates the left-dislocated phrase in a position immediately on top of CP of the main clause.

    87
    a. Dat boek, nee, dat heb ik niet gelezen.
      that book  no  dem  have  I  not  read
      'That book, no, I havenʼt read it.'
    a'. Dat boek, ja, dat heb ik inderdaad gelezen.
      that book  yes  dem  have  I  indeed  read
      'That book, yes indeed, I have read it.'
    b. Dat boek, tja, dat moet ik inderdaad eens lezen.
      that book, well,  dem  must  I  indeed  once  read
      'That book, well, indeed, I should read it some time.'
    c. Dat boek, eh, dat heb ik niet gelezen.
      that book,  er  dem  have  I  not  read
      'That book, er, I havenʼt read it.'

    This problem can perhaps be solved by the wh-movement analysis of contrastive LD proposed in Ott (2014), which does not postulate a complex phrase [proform + XP]. Ott proposes instead that contrastive LD-constructions are biclausal; they consist of two juxtaposed clauses, the first of which is partly elided under identity with the second clause. Example (88a) receives the analysis in (88a'), in which the element &: marks a phonetically empty conjunction with a specifying meaning. A major advantage of this type of analysis is that the ellipsis operation in (88a') is independently needed in order to account for the existence of fragment clauses such as the fragment answer in (88b); see Section 5.1.5 for extensive discussion.

    88
    a. Dat boek, dat heb ik gelezen.
      that book  dem  have  I  read
      'That book, I have read it.'
    a'. [Dat boekiheb ik ti gelezen] &: [dati heb ik ti gelezen].
    b. Welk boek heb je gelezen?
      which book  have  you  read
      'Which book have you read?'
    b'. Hersenschimmen van J.Bernlefi heb ik ti gelezen.
      Hersenschimmen by J.Bernlef   have  I  read

    If the juxtaposition postulated in Ott’s analysis is indeed similar to coordination, the problem illustrated by (87) may receive a natural explanation as the clause in the second conjunct can easily be preceded by similar clause-external elements in speech.

    89
    a. Ik ging naar binnen en, ja, daar zat ze!
      I  went  to inside  and  yes  there  sat  she
      'I went inside and, yes, there she was!'
    a'. Ik dacht de oplossing te hebben, maar, nee, het werkte niet.
      I  thought  the solution  to have  but  no  it  worked  not
      'I though I had the solution but, no, it didnʼt work.'
    b. Hij wou weg, maar, tja, wat kan je daaraan doen?
      he  wanted  away  but  well  what  can  you  about.that  do
      'He wanted to leave, but, well, what can you do about that?'
    c. Hij wou weg, maar, eh, wat kan je daaraan doen?
      he  wanted  away  but  er  what  can  you  about.that  do
      'He wanted to leave, but, er, what can you do about that?'

    Another potential advantage of Ott’s proposal is that similar analyses have been put forward for split extraposition (cf. Section 12.4) and certain forms of right dislocation (cf. Section 14.3). In as far as these analyses are successful, Ott’s analysis of contrastive LD is independently supported.
          As the discussion on the proper analysis of contrastive LD is still ongoing, we have to await future research before we can reach a firm conclusion. We want to conclude this section, however, with a potential problem for all proposals reviewed in this subsection. Subsection VI has shown that contrastive LD is compatible with preposition stranding: this is illustrated again in (90a). The problem is that for most Dutch speakers preposition stranding gives rise to a degraded result in wh-movement constructions such as (90b&c).

    90
    a. Dit boeki, daari heeft hij weken [PPti op] gewacht.
    contrastive LD
      this book  that  has  he  weeks  for  waited
      'This book, he has been waiting for it for weeks.'
    b. * Welk boeki heeft hij weken [PP op ti] gewacht?
    wh-question
      which book  has  he  weeks  for  waited
    c. * Dit boeki heeft hij weken [PP op ti] gewacht.
    topicalization
      this book  has  he  weeks  for  waited

    According to the hypothesis in (86), the structure of (90a) is as given in (91a) in which the complex phrase [daar + het boek] is extracted from the op-PP. If we assume this to be possible, it becomes a mystery why the simpler noun phrase welk boek/welk boek in (90b&c) cannot be extracted, as this would result in the simpler structures in (91b&c).

    91
    a. [Dit boekj [CP [daar + tj]i heeft [TP hij weken [PP op ti/j] gewacht]]].
    contr. LD
    b. [CP Welk boeki heeft [TP hij weken [op ti] gewacht]]?
    wh-question
    c. [CP Dit boeki heeft [TP hij weken [op ti] gewacht]].
    topicalization

    The contrast in (90) might also be a problem for Ott’s (2014) analysis. The contrastive LD construction in (90a) would have to be analyzed as in (92a), and the problem is that the structure of the first conjunct is precisely the same as the one normally assumed for the unacceptable topicalization construction in (90c). At first sight this may seem bad news, but there is also good news, as Ott’s analysis leads us to expect that we find same problem in fragment answers such as (92b').

    92
    a. [Dit boeki heeft hij weken [op ti] gewacht] &:
    contrastive LD
    [daari heeft hij weken [op ti] gewacht].
    b. Waari heeft hij [ti op] gewacht?
    question
      where  has  he  for  waited
      'What has he been waiting for?'
    b'. Dat boek heeft hij [opti] gewacht.
    answer
      that book  has  he   for  waited
      'That book.'

    This means that we are dealing with the more general problem discussed in Section 5.1.5, sub IB, that the ellipsis operation found in fragment clauses in one way or another cancels island violations. We will not digress on this issue, but refer the reader to Merchant (2001/2006), Ott & De Vries (2015), and references cited there for possible explanations of this fact.

    References:
    • Alexiadou, Artemis2006Left Dislocation (including CLLD)Everaert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume IIMalden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing668-699
    • Alexiadou, Artemis2006Left Dislocation (including CLLD)Everaert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax, Volume IIMalden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing668-699
    • Barbiers, Sjef2007On the periphery of imperative and declarative clauses in Dutch and GermanWurff, Wim van der (ed.)Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Studies in honour of Frits BeukemaAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins95-112
    • Bennis, Hans & Hoekstra, Teun1983De syntaxis van het Nederlands. Een inleiding in de regeer- en bindtheorieForis
    • Chomsky, Noam1977On <i>wh</i>-movementCulicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas & Akmajian, Adrian (eds.)Formal syntaxNew YorkAcademic Press71-132
    • Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard1977Filters and controlLinguistic Inquiry8425-504
    • Grohmann, Kleanthes K2003Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of Movement DependenciesAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company
    • Haan, Germen J. de2010Studies in West Frisian Grammar. Selected papers by Germen J. de HaanLinguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today 161John Benjamins Publishing Company
    • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
    • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
    • Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, Rooij, Jaap de & Toorn, Maarten C. van den1997Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunstGroningenNijhoff
    • Klooster, Wim1989"Bananenzinnen"Porteman, Karel & Schöndorf, Kurt Erich (eds.)Liber amicorium Kåre Langvik-Johanessen35-43
    • Klooster, Wim2001Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands. Een volledig overzichtDen HaagSDU Uitgeverij
    • Kosmeijer, Wim1993Barriers and licensingUniversity of GroningenThesis
    • Koster, Jan1978Locality principles in syntaxDordrechtForis Publications
    • Merchant, Jason2001The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsisOxford/New YorkOxford University Press
    • Merchant, Jason2006SluicingEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax4Malden, Ma/OxfordBlackwell Publishing271-291
    • Odijk, Jan1998Topicalization of non-extraposed complements in DutchLinguistic Inquiry16191-222
    • Odijk, Jan1998Topicalization of non-extraposed complements in DutchLinguistic Inquiry16191-222
    • Odijk, Jan2009Topicalization of sentences in Dutch is contrastive dislocation
    • Odijk, Jan2009Topicalization of sentences in Dutch is contrastive dislocation
    • Ott, Dennis2014An ellipsis approach to contrastive left dislocationLinguistic Inquiry45269-303
    • Ott, Dennis2014An ellipsis approach to contrastive left dislocationLinguistic Inquiry45269-303
    • Ott, Dennis2014An ellipsis approach to contrastive left dislocationLinguistic Inquiry45269-303
    • Ott, Dennis2014An ellipsis approach to contrastive left dislocationLinguistic Inquiry45269-303
    • Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
    • Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
    • Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van1997Left dislocationAnagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company1-10
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van1997Left dislocationAnagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company1-10
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van1997Left dislocationAnagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company1-10
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van1997Left dislocationAnagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company1-10
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans1997Left dislocation in Dutch and the status of copying rules [originally written in 1974]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemsdijk, Henk van & Zwarts, Frans (eds.)Materials on left dislocationAmsterdam/PhiladephiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company13-54
    • Salverda, Reinier2000On topicalization in Modern DutchShanno, Thomas F. & Snapper, Johan P. (eds.)The Berkeley conference on Dutch linguistics 1997. The Dutch language at the millenniumLanham/New York/OxfordUniversity Press of America93-111
    • Vat, Jan1997Left Dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction [written in 1980]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemdijk, Henk van & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam/Philadelphia67-92
    • Vat, Jan1997Left Dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction [written in 1980]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemdijk, Henk van & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam/Philadelphia67-92
    • Vat, Jan1997Left Dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction [written in 1980]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemdijk, Henk van & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam/Philadelphia67-92
    • Vat, Jan1997Left Dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction [written in 1980]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemdijk, Henk van & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam/Philadelphia67-92
    • Vat, Jan1997Left Dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction [written in 1980]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemdijk, Henk van & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam/Philadelphia67-92
    • Vat, Jan1997Left Dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction [written in 1980]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemdijk, Henk van & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam/Philadelphia67-92
    • Vat, Jan1997Left Dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction [written in 1980]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Riemdijk, Henk van & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationJohn BenjaminsAmsterdam/Philadelphia67-92
    • Vergnaud, Jean-Roger1974French relative clausesMITThesis
    • Vries, Mark de2009The right and left periphery in DutchThe Linguistic Review26291-327
    • Vries, Mark de2009The right and left periphery in DutchThe Linguistic Review26291-327
    • Vries, Mark de & Ott, Dennis2015Right dislocation as deletionNatural Language & Linguistic Theory33
    • Weerman, Fred1989The V2 conspiracy. A synchronic and a diachronic analysis of verbal positions in Germanic languagesDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
    • Wit, Petra de1997Genitive case and genitive constructionsUtrechtUniversity of UtrechtThesis
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zaenen, Annie1997Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic [written in the early 80's]Anagnostopoulou, Elena, van Riemdijk, Henk & Zwart, Frans (eds.)Materials on Left DislocationAmsterdam/PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins Publishing Company119-148
    • Zwart, Jan-Wouter1997Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of DutchDordrechtKluwer Academic Publishers
    • Zwart, Jan-Wouter1997Morphosyntax of verb movement. A minimalist approach to the syntax of DutchDordrechtKluwer Academic Publishers
    About this article
    Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver
    Category: Dutch Syntax
    Keywords: AccentBindingContrastive AccentDemonstrativeDistal DemonstrativeEllipsisFloating QuantifierIdiomJuxtapositionLeft DislocationPied PipingQuantifierReciprocal PronounReferential PronounRelative PronounResumptive PronounStackingStrandingTopicalizationWord OrderWh-movement
    Version: 1.0, January 2016
    Version history:
    version editor(s) date remarks
    1.0 Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver January 2016
    report errorprintcite
    Jump to:
    X