Version classiqueVersion mobile

New Perspectives in Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew

 | 
Aaron D. Hornkohl
, 
Khan Geoffrey

Differentiating Left Dislocation Constructions in Biblical Hebrew1

L. Miller-Naudé et A. Naudé

Résumé

Left dislocation (as opposed to topicalisation) involves a constituent that occurs to the left of the sentence boundary and has resumption within the core sentence. Crosslinguistically, left dislocation constructions exhibit considerable syntactic variation, which can be described on the basis of three considerations. The first relates to the grammatical features of the coreferential resumptive element. The second concerns the relationship of the left-dislocated constituent to the resumptive element, especially with respect to case agreement. The third relates to the relationship of the sentence involving left dislocation to the broader syntactic context. By considering these questions within the context of contemporary linguistic theory, we can determine in a more precise and principled way the kinds of left-dislocation constructions that are differentiated in Biblical Hebrew and their essential characteristics.

Texte intégral

1.0. Introduction

  • 1 This work is based on research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Afric (...)

1Left dislocation (as opposed to topicalisation) involves a constituent that occurs outside of the left edge of the sentence boundary and has resumption within the sentence. Characteristic features of left dislocation include the following (Alexiadou 2006, 668– 71): (1) a referential constituent is dislocated and precedes a matrix sentence and is accompanied by a separate intonation contour; (2) an alternative position for the dislocated constituent exists within the matrix sentence, which is filled by an anaphoric, coreferential resumptive element; and (3) the matrix sentence is considered to be ‘about’ the left dislocated element (the ‘aboutness requirement’).

  • 2 See, for example, Ben-Horin (1976); Gross (1987); Khan (1988); (2016); Anangnostopoulou (1997); Ana (...)
  • 3 In a future article we consider the kind of intonational breaks between the dislocated constituent (...)
  • 4 An additional type of left dislocation which is distinct from clitic left dislocation—broad subject (...)
  • 5 Throughout we use representative examples of the syntactic phenomena discussed rather than comprehe (...)

2Crosslinguistically, left dislocation constructions exhibit considerable syntactic variation.2 In our previous publications (especially, Naudé 1990 and Miller-Naudé and Naudé 2019) syntactic variation within left dislocation was noted, but not analysed. In this chapter, the types of left dislocation in Biblical Hebrew will be differentiated on the basis of the following three considerations.3 The first relates to the grammatical features of the coreferential resumptive element (Oosthuizen 2016). The second concerns the relationship of the left dislocated constituent to the resumptive element, especially with respect to case agreement. The third relates to the relationship of the sentence involving left dislocation to the broader syntactic context.4 By considering these questions within the context of contemporary linguistic theory we can determine in a more precise and principled way the kinds of left dislocation constructions that are differentiated in Biblical Hebrew and their essential characteristics.5

2.0. Topicalisation and Left Dislocation

  • 6 Naudé (1990; 1994a; 1994b; 1999); Holmstedt (2014); see also Shlonsky (2014).
  • 7 Westbury (2014; 2016); see Van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze (2017, 510–18) for a description of bot (...)

3Preparatory to the following discussion, we briefly summarise some of the ways in which the syntactic constructions topicalisation (or fronting) and left dislocation differ from one another. Although topicalisation and left dislocation have been differentiated in linguistic analyses of Biblical Hebrew,6 an alternative position considers the two to be varieties of ‘fronting’, which optionally exhibits resumption.7

4The following verse provides contrastive examples of left dislocation and topicalisation in adjacent sentences.

(1)

כ ָּ ה־ל ַ ב ֵּ֣ ן ה ַ י ִּ ל ֹּ֗ דו ה ַ י ְֹ א ָּ ר ֹ ה ֙ ת ַ ש ְ ל ִּ כי ֻ֔ ה ּ ו ֙ ו ְ כ ָּ ה־ל ַ ב ַַּ֖ ת ת ְ ח ַ י ּּֽ ׃ןו
Every son that is born, into the Nile you will throw him, but every daughter you will allow to liveevery daughter.’ (Exod. 1.22)

  • 8 We understand Biblical Hebrew to exhibit unmarked word order of VSO (verb-subject-object) followed (...)
  • 9 The object regularly follows this verb, either with (Exod. 1.17) or without (Num. 31.15) the defini (...)

5Topicalisation involves a constituent that is moved to the very beginning of the sentence. In the second sentence in (1) the object (‘every daughter’) is topicalised before the verb; it has been moved from its unmarked position after the verb in the sentence.8 A zero trace marks the location where the constituent originally occurred in the sentence; this is indicated by the small subscripted type.9 What is important is that the object constituent remains inside the sentence, although it has been moved to initial position within the sentence. It is for this reason that there is no resumption of the constituent in its original position in the sentence—the topicalised constituent is required to complete the sentence. By contrast, in the first sentence in (1), the object constituent (‘every son that is born’) is left dislocated—it occurs outside of the sentence and has a coreferential resumptive element (also called a ‘correlate’, see López 2016) that occurs within the sentence, viz. the object suffix on the verb (‘him’). The matrix sentence ‘you will throw him’ (consisting of a verb and its object suffix) is a fully-formed predication apart from the dislocated constituent.

  • 10 For representative examples of the unmarked order of the object occurring after this verb, see Gen. (...)

6In the first sentence in (1), the resumptive element of the dislocated constituent occurs in situ, that is, in the normal position after the verb that the constituent would have had within the sentence without dislocation.10 However, it is also possible for the resumptive element itself to be topicalised within the matrix sentence so that it occurs at the beginning of the matrix sentence:

(2)

א ֶ י־ת ְ ה ָ ו ָ ה צ ְ ב ָ א ֖ תו א ֹ ת ֣ ו ת ַ ק ְ ד ּ י ׁ וש
The Lord of hosts, him you will regardhim as holy.’ (Isa. 8.13)

7The object noun phrase (NP) (‘the Lord of hosts’) is dislocated. Its resumptive element (‘him’) is topicalised (moved to the beginning of the matrix sentence); semantically, it conveys contrastive focus.

  • 11 For example, in Num. 14.24, the dislocated NP וְעַבְִּּדֵּ֣י כָּּ֗לב ‘and my servant Caleb’ is sepa (...)
  • 12 For example, in Gen. 3.3, the quotative frame אַָּמֵּ֣ר אֱֹלהִּים ‘God said’ intervenes between the (...)
  • 13 For example, in Exod. 12.15, the matrix sentence begins with a perfect consecutive verb (ִּכֵּ֣י׀ כ (...)
  • 14 For example, in Job 38.29, the interrogative marker (ִּמֵּ֣י) intervenes between the dislocated NP (...)

8The sentence boundary between the left dislocated constituent and the matrix sentence can be detected on the basis of the appearance of the following items at the sentence boundary: a parenthetical element,11 a quotative frame,12 a consecutive verb form,13 and an interrogative.14 The fact that a topicalised constituent remains within the left boundary of the sentence, whereas a left dislocated constituent occurs outside of the left boundary, results in two additional syntactic features useful for categorising the two types of constructions.

9First, the topicalised constituent has the same form that it would have in its unmarked position within the sentence, especially with respect to case marking (Naudé 1990, 126). This is especially evident with respect to the various ways in which the object may be marked—with the definite object marker (3a), as a definite NP without the definite object marker (3b), an indefinite object (3c), or a prepositional complement (3d):

(3a)

֙ א ֶ לק־ת ְ ך ֙ ש ַָּ מ ַּ֖ ע ְ ת ִּ י ב ַָּ ג ָָּ֑ ן
Your voice I heardyour voice in the garden.’ (Gen. 3.10)

(3b)

֙ ְ עו ְֶ ר ַ תו א ֲ ב ִּ י ֶ ה ַּ֖ ם אל ָּ אר ּּֽ ו
‘And the nakedness of their father they did not seethe nakedness of their father.’ (Gen. 9.23)

(3c)

ו ְ ק ָ ץו ו ְַ ד ְ ר ַ ד ֖ ר ת ַ צ ְ מ ֣ י ַַ ח ל ָּ ך
‘And thorns and thistles will sproutthornsandthistles for you.’ (Gen. 3.18)

(3d)

פמ ְ ר ָ י ע ַ ה־ץ ַָ ג ּ֖ ן נ ֹ כא ַ ל
From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eatfromthe fruit of the trees of the garden.’ (Gen. 3.2)

10As is described below, the question of the case of the dislocated constituent in left dislocation constructions serves as a diagnostic tool for differentiating various types.

11Second, topicalisation and left dislocation are differentiated with respect to negation (see Miller-Naudé and Naudé 2019). To name just one example, topicalised constituents may exhibit negation of the topicalised constituent apart from the matrix sentence as a whole when the negative marker precedes the topicalised constituent. In (4a) negation extends only to the prepositional phrase and not to the predication as a whole:

(4a)

ל ֹֹ א גב ְ וב ַ ר ֣ ת ה ַ ס ֣ סו י ֶ ח ְ פ ָּ ץ
Not in the strength of a horse he delightsnot in the strength of a horse.’ (Ps. 147: 10)

  • 15 Negation with the interrogative marker and ל֙א, viz., הֲלא, is a special case; see Snyman and Naudé (...)

12By contrast, left dislocated constituents cannot be negated apart from their matrix sentence.15 As illustrated in (4b), both a topicalised constituent (first poetic line) and a left dislocated constituent (second poetic line) may precede the negative marker that negates the entire sentence:

(4b)

ֹ כ ֶ ס ֶֹ ף ֙ ל ֵּ֣ א י ַ ח ְ ש ֻ֔ ב ּ ו / ְ זו ָָּּ ה ַּ֖ ב אל י ַ ח ְּ פ ְ צ ּ ב־ו ֹּֽ ו
Silver they do not regardsilver / and gold they do not delight in it.’ (Isa. 13.17)

13This difference in the possibility of constituent negation of topicalised constituents as opposed to left dislocated constructions is a direct result of their respective syntactic structures—the topicalised constituent remains within the matrix sentence, whereas the dislocated constituent is outside the left boundary of the matrix sentence.

3.0. Types of Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew

3.1. Clitic Left Dislocation

  • 16 Case agreement is used in the sense of abstract case marking within generative linguistics. Abstrac (...)

14The first type of left dislocation in Biblical Hebrew involves a dislocated constituent that exhibits case agreement with its resumptive,16 and the resumptive is a pronominal clitic:

(5)

א ֶ ז־ת ִּ מ ָּ ת ְ ך ְ או ֶ ת־ת ֹ עו ֲ ב ֹ ו ַ ת ַּ֖ י ְִּ ך ַ א ֵּ֣ ת ְ ֙ נ ְ ש ָּ א ִּ ת ָ םי
‘Your wickedness and your abominations, you bear them.’ (Ezek. 16.58)

15The dislocated NP is explicitly marked as the definite object with the definite object marker and its resumptive within the matrix sentence is an pronominal object suffix on the verb. Because the resumptive is a pronominal clitic, this kind of left dislocation has been called ‘clitic left dislocation’.

16Clitic left dislocation may involve an object NP (as in [5]) or a subject NP (as in [6]):

(6) ֙

ו ַ א ֲ נ ִּ י ה ִּ נ ְִּ נ ֤ י שי ֹ ב ֙ ב ַ מ ִּ צ ְּ פ ָֻּ֔ ה ‘And I, behold I will dwell at Mizpah.’ (Jer. 40.10)

17The dislocated subject pronoun is separated from the matrix sentence by the presentative ה ִּ֙ נ ֙ ה ‘behold’. The subject is resumed with the pronominal subject suffix on the presentative.

18Clitic left dislocation may involve a prepositional phrase (PP) (as in [7]), where the dislocated PP contains a relative clause and the resumptive is topicalised:

  • 17 See also 2 Sam. 6.23.

(7)

בו ְ ע ְַ לו ָ ו א ֲׁ ש ֶ ע־ר ָ ש ָ֖ ה ב ָ ו י ַָ תומ
‘And in his injustice which he has done, in it he will diein it.’ (Ezek. 33.13)17

19In Biblical Hebrew, clitic left dislocation, unlike topicalisation, can involve a resumptive element that crosses subordinate sentence boundaries. In (8), the pronominal resumptive is embedded within an infinitival complement clause:

(8)

֙ ב ְ נ ּֽ י־י ְ ה ּ ו ָּ ד ַּ֖ ה ל ְּֽ ה ֹ ו ִּ יר ָּ ש ָ ם ] Q [ְ או ֶ ה־ת ַ י ְ ב ּ סו ִֹּ י ֙ י ֹ שו ְ ב ֵּ֣ י י ְּֽ ר ּ שו ָּ ל ִַֻּ֔ ם ּֽ י־אל ָּ כ ְ ל ּ ו
‘But the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem—the sons of Judah were not able to drive them out.’ (Josh. 15.63)

  • 18 Alexiadou (2006, 673–74, 682–85); see also Alexopoulou, Doron, and Heycock (2004). For an overview (...)

20Crosslinguistically, clitic left dislocation constructions are usually sensitive to ‘island’ constraints, although these are language specific; by contrast, hanging topic left dislocation constructions (see §3.2) are not usually subject to these constraints.18

21Biblical Hebrew is a pro-drop language, which means that when a finite verb is present in the sentence, the pronominal subject is null or covert, rather than expressed (Naudé 1991; 1993; 1996; 2001). However, the phonologically null subject pro on finite verbs cannot serve as an unexpressed resumptive pronoun within left dislocation constructions (Naudé 1996; 1999; Holmstedt 2014; cf. Cowper and DeCaen 2017). Such an analysis would mean that in sentences such as (9), there is no explanation for the independent subject pronoun, since the phonologically null subject pro on the finite verb serves as the resumptive:

(9)

ְ קו ֹ ו ָ י י ְ וה ָ ה ה ֣ מ ָ ה י ַ י ְ ר ׁ ־וש ָ א ֶַ ץר
‘But those who wait for the Lord, they (pro they) will inherit the land.’ (Ps. 37.9)

3.2. Hanging Topic Left Dislocation

22In the second sub-type of left dislocation in Biblical Hebrew, the dislocated constituent is always a noun phrase (not a prepositional phrase or an adverbial phrase), but the resumptive within the matrix sentence may bear any grammatical relation to the predication. In (10), the noun phrase ‘north and south’ is not marked as an object, but its resumptive element within the matrix sentence is an object verbal suffix:

(10)

֙ צ ָּ פ ֵֹּ֣ ןו ְ ו ְ י ָּ מ ִּ ןי א ַָּ ת ֵּ֣ ה ב ְָּ אר ָּ ת ָ ם ‘North and south, you created them.’ (Ps. 89.13)

23Because the dislocated NP does not exhibit the case agreement with its resumptive, this construction has traditionally been referred to as casus pendens. It is referred to in the linguistics literature as ‘hanging topic left dislocation’.

24In (11), the dislocated NP has a resumptive that is a pronominal clitic on the preposition֙ - ל :

(11)

ו ְ ה ָ א ֣ י ׁ ש כימ ָ ה ל ֖ ו ב ֣ תי א ֱֹ הל ּ םי
‘ (As for) the man Micah, he had a shrine.’ (Literally: ‘and the man Micah, to him a house of godsto him’) (Judg. 17.5)

25The NP may be realised by an independent subject pronoun whose resumptive element is a possessive pronominal clitic:

(12)

א ֲ ינ נה ָ ה ב ְ תיר ֖ י א ָ ת ּ ך ‘I, behold, my covenant is with you.’ (Gen. 17.4)

26The difference between example (12), as a hanging topic left dislocation, and example (6) (repeated here), with a clitic resumptive exhibiting case agreement, is very striking:

(6)

֙ ו ַ א ֲ נ ִּ י ה ִּ נ ְִּ נ ֤ י שי ֹ ב ֙ ב ַ מ ִּ צ ְּ פ ָֻּ֔ ה ‘And I, behold I will dwell at Mizpah.’ (Jer. 40.10)

27Hanging topic left dislocation, like clitic left dislocation, allows the resumptive element to be deeply embedded within a subordinate clause; compare (8) above with (13):

(13)

ז ֵֶּ֣ ה ׀ שמ ֵֶּ֣ ה ה ָּ א ִּ שי א ֲ ש ֶ֤ ר ֶ ה ּֽ ע ֱ ל ָֹּ נ ֹּ ו ֙ אמ ֵֶֶּ֣ ץר מ ִּ צ ְַ ר ֻ֔ י ִּ ם אל י ַָּ ד ַּ֖ ע ְ נ ּ ו מ ֶ ־ה ָּ יה ָּ ה ל ֹּֽ ׃ו
‘This Moses, the man who brought us from the land of Egypt, we do not know what happened to him.’ (Exod. 32.1)

28This syntactic feature, therefore, does not serve to differentiate these two kinds of left dislocation in Biblical Hebrew. By contrast, topicalisation is a movement construction, which is constrained by its sentence boundaries—a topicalised constituent cannot move to the beginning of the matrix sentence from an embedded sentence. We see this in (14a), in which the topicalised NP moves only to the beginning of its embedded sentence:

(14a)

ו ְָ ז ֣ כ ְַ תר ָ ע־יכ ֶָ ב ֶ ד ה ָ י ֖ תי ָ ב ְ צמ ְָ ר ּ םי
‘You must remember that a slave you werea slave in Egypt.’ (Deut. 16.12)

29If a topicalised constituent could move past a sentence boundary, then the unattested sentence in (14b), in which the topicalised NP has moved from a deeply embedded sentence to the beginning of the matrix sentence, would be possible:

(14b)

*A slave you must remember that you werea slave in Egypt

3.3. Left Dislocation with a Deictic Resumptive

30The third type of left dislocation involves a deictic resumptive which is coreferential with the dislocated constituent. In (15), the deictic resumptive is the pronominal deictic ֙ לא ֶ ה ‘these’ and the dislocated constituent exhibits case agreement:

(15)

ו ְ בל ְ נ ֹ ת ַ י מ ַָ א־ה ֶַ ע ֱ ש ֶֹ ה ל ָ א ֙ ל ֶ ה ֙ ה ַ י ָ םו א ָ ו בל ְ הינ ֶ֖ ן א ֲׁ ש ֶָ ר י ָ ל ַָ ׃וד

‘… and for my daughters, what should I do for these today or for their sons which they have borne?’ (Gen. 31.43)

  • 19 See also Gen. 25.10; Deut. 12.11; Qoh. 3.16.

31In (16), the dislocated constituent is a prepositional phrase and the resumptive element is the deictic ש ָּ֙ ם ‘there’ (Naudé 1990, 115; Holmstedt 2014, 121).19

(16)

ע ַָ ל נ ַ ה ֲ ר ֙ ׀תו ב ָ ב ֶָ ל ׁ ש ָ֣ ם י ָׁ ש ַ ב ְ ונ
By the rivers of Babylon, there we satthere.’ (Ps. 137.1)

32In (17), the deictic resumptive is א ָּ ז ‘then’:

(17)

֙ ב ַ ע ֲ תש ֵֹּ֣ ו ל ַ מ ָָּּ ט ֵּ֣ ר ָ קח ְָׁ֜ דו ֶֶּ֗ ר ְ ך ל ַ ח ֲִּ זיז לק ֹּֽ תו :ָּ א ֵּ֣ ז ְָּ֙ אר ָּּ ה ַ ו ָּּֽ֑ י ְ ס ַּ פ ְָּ ר ָּ ה ָׁ֜ ה ֱ כ ִּ ני ָּּ ה ו ְ ג ַ ח־ם ֲָּ ק ָּ ר ּּֽ ׃ה
When he made a rule for the wind and a path for the thunderstorms, then he saw it [=the wisdom, Job 28.12] and gauged it, he measured it and probed it.’ (Job 28.26–27)

33In (16) and (17) there is no case agreement between the resumptive deictic and the dislocated constituent, but in a different sense than we have seen thus far. The dislocated constituent is headed by a prepositional phrase, whereas the resumptive element is not headed by a preposition, but is an adverb.

34This category of left dislocation with a deictic resumptive cannot be considered a sub-category of the two categories of left dislocation previously identified. It is not a sub-category of clitic left dislocation (§3.1), because the resumptive element is not a clitic and there is not necessarily case agreement between the dislocated constituent and the resumptive element. Neither is it a sub-category of hanging-topic left dislocation (§3.2), because the dislocated element is not a NP.

3.4. Left Dislocation with an Independent Pronominal Resumptive

35The fourth type of left dislocation involves a dislocated noun phrase whose resumptive element is a strong, tonic pronoun, rather than a pronominal clitic. In Biblical Hebrew, only independent subject pronouns are strong, tonic pronouns:

  • 20 See also Gen. 37.30; 47.6; Deut. 30.1; 1 Sam. 17.14; 2 Sam. 21.2; Zech. 1.5.

(18)

י ְ ה ָּ ו ֤ ה א ֱֹּֽ כיהל ֶֹ ם ֙ ה ַ לה ְֵּ֣ ך ל ִּ פ ְ כינ ֶֻ֔ ם ה ַּּ֖ או י ִּ ל ָּ ח ֵּ֣ ם ל ָּ כ ֶָ ם
‘The Lord your God who goes before you, he will fight for you.’ (Deut. 1.30)20

36Semantically, the resumptive independent pronoun conveys contrastive focus when it occurs as the first element in the matrix sentence; in (18), the meaning is ‘he (and no one else) will fight for you’.

37In cases where the matrix sentence is a verbless clause, it is important to distinguish constructions involving left dislocation and those which are tripartite verbless clauses (see Naudé 1994a; 2002; Naudé and Miller-Naudé 2017 for the argumentation and additional bibliographic sources). Left dislocation constructions have an intonational break (indicated by a disjunctive Masoretic accent) after the dislocated constituent (19):

(19)

ְ דו ָ ו ֖ ד ה ֣ או ה ַ ק ָ ט ָּ ן
As for David, he was the youngest.’ (1 Sam. 17.14)

38The pronoun ( ה ֣ או ) as resumptive agrees in person, gender, and number with the dislocated element and semantically conveys contrastive focus. When the predicate rather than the subject of a verbless predication is in contrastive focus, it will be topicalised so that it precedes the pronominal subject; in (20) the prepositional predicate ל ְ פ ָ נ ֶ֣ י ָ ך is topicalised:

(20)

א ֶֶֹ ץר צמ ְַ ר ֙ םי ֙ ל ְ פ ָ נ ֶ֣ י ָ ך ה ָ או
As for the land of Egypt, before you it isbeforeyou.’ (Gen. 47.6)

39By contrast, in tripartite verbless clauses, the pronominal element after the first constituent is joined to it by maqqef or a conjunctive accent; the pronominal element is neither a resumptive element nor a copula:

(21)

֙ א ַ ת ָּ ה־ה ֵּּ֣ או ֙ מ ַ ל ְִּ כ ֵּ֣ י א ֱֹ ל ִּ ה ָ םי
‘You are my king, O God.’ (Ps. 44.5)

40The pronominal element ה ּ או is a ‘last resort strategy’ to avoid ambiguity in the identification of the nominal subject. In (21), an additional argument against viewing the third person pronoun as a resumptive element in a dislocation construction involves the lack of agreement between the subject ( א ַ ת ָּ ה ) and the pronoun֙ ה ֵּּ֣ או that follows—a third person pronominal element cannot function as an anaphoric pronoun resuming a second person pronoun. Instead, the pronoun ה ֵּּ֣ או functions in a ‘last resort’ strategy to insure that א ַ ת ָּ ה is understood as the subject of a verbless predication in which מ ַ ל ְִּ כ ֵּ֣ י is the predicate.

3.5. Left Dislocation with a Noun Phrase Resumptive

41The fifth type of left dislocation involves a noun phrase resumptive which is coreferential with a dislocated noun phrase:

(22)

ה ַָׁ֜ נ ֶ פ ֶ ש א ֲ ש ֶ כאת־ר ֵַּ֣ ל ב ָּ ש ָּ ר מ ִּ ז ֶ֤ ב ַ ח ה ַ ש ְ ל ָּ מ ִּ י ֹ ם ֙ א ֲ ש ֵֶּ֣ ר ל ַ והי ָֻּ֔ ה ְ מטו ְ א ָּ ת ַֹּ֖ ו ע ָָּּ ל ָ וי ו ְ נ ִּ כ ְְ ר ָּ ת ָ ה ה ֶַ פנ ֶ ש ה ִַּ ה ַּ֖ או עמ ַ מ ֶּֽ הי ָּ ׃
‘But the person who eats flesh from the sacrifices of wellbeing which belong to the Lord and his uncleanness is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his relatives.’ (Lev. 7.20)

42When the resumptive element is the subject, the dislocated NP exhibits case agreement with it, as illustrated in (22). However, when the resumptive is not the subject, there is no case agreement between the dislocated NP and its resumption as the object of the verb:

(23)

ע ְֶ ר ַ ו ֤ ת ב ַ ב־ת ִּ נ ְֹ ך ֙ א ֵֹּ֣ ו ב ַּֽ ב־ת ִּ ת ְ ך ֻ֔ ֙ אל ת ְ ג ַ ל ֶַּ֖ ה ע ְֶ ר ָּ ו ָּ ת ָ ן
‘The nakedness of the daughter of your son or the daughter of your daughter—you must not uncover their nakedness’. (Lev. 18.10)

3.6. Marginal Constructions

43We now briefly consider two marginal constructions. The first construction is illustrated in (24). The first constituent (‘the word which he shows me’) has no resumptive element within the matrix sentence and thus is not a variety of left dislocation. However, some scholars have understood the so-called consecutive verb form in the matrix sentence to indicate a sentence boundary which should block the topicalisation of a constituent.

(24)

ו ְ בד ַָ ר מ ַ י־ה ְַ אר ֖ ינ ו ְ ה ַ ג ְּ֣ יתד ל ָּ ך
‘... and the word which he shows me and I will declarethe word which he shows meto you.’ (Num. 23.3)

44This construction was first identified in Naudé (1990). It was called ‘heavy topic focus’ by Holmstedt (2014), who argued that the so-called consecutive verbal forms, which obligatorily begin with waw, should not be considered uncrossable boundaries for the movement of constituents. Miller-Naudé (2019) and Miller-Naudé and Naudé (2019) call the construction ‘heavy topicalisation’ and provide additional arguments against viewing it as a type of left dislocation.

  • 21 See also Lev. 25.32; 2 Kgs 22.18b–19.

45The second marginal construction is exemplified in (25):21

(25)

ְ ו ֹ ה ַָּּ בד ָֻּ֔ ר א ֲֶ רש ִּּ ד ַ ב ְַּ֖ נר ּ ו א ֲִּ נ ֵּ֣ י ו ָָּּ א ָ ת ָּ ה ה ִּ נ ֵּ֧ ה י ְ ה ָּ ו ָ ה יב ִּ ינ ּ ניבו ְ ך ַּ֖֙ ע ַ ע־ד ֹ ו ָּ ל ּֽ ׃ם
And the word which we spoke, I and you—behold the Lord is between me and between you for ever.’ (1 Sam. 20.23)

46The noun phrase ‘the word which we spoke, I and you’ cannot be understood as a topicalised constituent, because it cannot be understood as playing a grammatical role in the matrix sentence. The construction is also not a type of left dislocation, properly speaking, because there is no resumption of the dislocated noun phrase within the matrix sentence.

47Van Riemsdijk (1997) has identified a similar construction in French, which he refers to as ‘Loose Aboutness Left Dislocation’; however, the only feature of left dislocation that is present is the semantic ‘aboutness requirement.’ O’Connor (1993) refers to the Biblical Hebrew construction as ‘thematisation’, and insists that it must not be grouped together with left dislocation, because the absence of the resumptive is ‘definitive’. We agree with O’Connor’s analysis and describe the noun phrase as providing the ‘frame of reference’ for the following discourse in a construction that is neither topicalisation nor left dislocation (see also Blau 1977).

48In (26), a complicated construction is found:

(26)

ו ְ ע ַ ב ְְּ ךד ֙ ו ַ א ֲ מ ָּ ת ְ ך ַּ֖֙ א ֲ ש ֵֶּ֣ ר ֙ י ִּ ה ְ י ּ ־ו ָּ ל ְָ ך אמ ֵּ֣ ת ה ַ ג ֹ יו ִּ ם ֙ א ֲ ש ֶֹ ר ֙ ס ְ ב ִּ י ֵּ֣ כיתב ֶֻ֔ ם מ ֶ םה ת ִּ ק ְ נ ַּּ֖ ו ֶ֙ בע ֶ ו ד ְ א ָָּּ מ ּֽ ׃ה
And your male slave and your female slave which will belong to youfrom the nations which are around you, from them you will buy a male slave and a female slavefrom them.’ (Lev. 25.44)

49The left dislocated prepositional phrase ‘from the nations which are around you’ has its resumption in the matrix sentence (‘from them’). The coordinate noun phrase ‘your male slave and your female slave which will belong to you’ seems to function as a frame of reference rather than a dislocated constituent, because the relative clause dependent upon it (‘which will belong to you’) does not appear with the NP in the matrix sentence. The verse, then, has a frame of reference that introduces a left dislocated construction. The matrix sentence echoes the coordinate noun phrase of the frame of reference without resuming it syntactically.

4.0. Conclusions

50In conclusion, we have attempted to further the analysis of left dislocations in Biblical Hebrew in four ways. First, we differentiated left dislocation constructions on the basis of the grammatical features of the coreferential resumptive element. Second, we examined the relationship between the left dislocated constituent and the resumptive element, especially with respect to case agreement. Third, we examined the role of matrix sentences and ‘islands’ in the framework of left dislocation constructions. Fourth, we provided additional clarity on two marginal constructions, neither of which can be categorised as left dislocation. The first, ‘heavy topicalisation’, we identify as a marginal type of topicalisation. The second, ‘frame of reference’, is neither left dislocation nor topicalisation, but rather a detached noun phrase which provides the frame of reference for the following discourse.

Bibliographie

References

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2006. ‘Left Dislocation (including CCLD)’. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, edited by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 2: 668–99. Oxford: Blackwell.

Alexopoulou, Theodora, Edit Doron, and Caroline Heycock. 2004. ‘Broad Subjects and Clitic Left Dislocation’. In Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects, edited by David Adger, Cécile DeCat, and George Tsoulas, 329–58. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 59. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Anangnostopoulou, Elena. 1997. ‘Clitic Left Dislocation and Contrastive Left Dislocation’. In Materials on Left Dislocation, edited by Elena Anangnostopoulou, Henk van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts, 151–92. Linguistik Aktuell 14. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Anangnostopoulou, Elena, Henk C. van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts (eds). 1997. Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ben-Horin, Gad. 1976. ‘Aspects of Syntactic Preposing in Spoken Hebrew’. In Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics, edited by Peter Cole, 193–207. North-Holland Linguistic Series 32. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Blau, Joshua. 1977. An Adverbial Construction in Hebrew and Arabic: Sentence Adverbials in Frontal Position Separated from the Rest of the Sentence. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Proceedings 6 (1). Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Cowper, Elizabeth, and Vincent DeCaen. 2017. ‘Biblical Hebrew: A Formal Perspective on the Left Periphery’. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 38: 1–33.

Doron, Edit, and Caroline Heycock. 2010. ‘In Support of Broad Subjects in Hebrew’. Lingua 120: 1764–76.

Gross, Walter. 1987. Die Pendenskonstruktion im Biblischen Hebräisch. Studien zum althebräischen Satz 1. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2014. ‘Critical at the Margins: Edge Constituents in Biblical Hebrew’. Papers Read at the 12th Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH), Mainz, edited by Reinhard G. Lehmann and Anna Elise Zernecke, 109–56. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 17. Kamen: Verlag Hartmut Spenner.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1988. Studies in Semitic Syntax. London Oriental Series 38. London: Oxford University Press.

— ——. 2016. ‘Left Dislocation in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects’. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50: 91–110.

Korchin, Paul. 2015. ‘Suspense and Authority amid Biblical Hebrew Front Dislocation’. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Volume 15, Article 1.dio.org/10.5508/jhs.2015.v15.a1.

Landau, Idan. 2009. ‘Against Broad Subjects in Hebrew’. Lingua 119: 89–101.

López, Luis. 2016. ‘Dislocations and Information Structure’. In The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, edited by Caroline Féry and Shinichiro Ishihara, 383–421. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. 2019. ‘Sentential Edges and Their Structures in Biblical Hebrew’. 8th Hyvernat Memorial Lecture. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America.

Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L., and Jacobus A. Naudé. 2019. ‘Differentiating Dislocations, Topicalisation, and Extraposition: Evidence from Negation’. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 56: 177–199.

Naudé, Jacobus A. 1990. ‘A Syntactic Analysis of Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16: 115–30.

— ——. 1991. ‘Qumran Hebrew as a Null Subject Language’. South African Journal of Linguistics 9: 119–28.

— ——. 1993. ‘On Subject Pronouns and Subject Noun Asymmetry: A Preliminary Survey of Northwest Semitic’. South African Journal of Linguistics 11: 11–28.

— ——. 1994a. ‘The Verbless Clause with Pleonastic Pronoun in Biblical Aramaic’. Journal for Semitics 6: 74–93.

— ——. 1994b. ‘The Asymmetry of Subject Pronouns and Subject Nouns in Qumran Hebrew and Cognates’. Journal for the Study of North-West Semitic Languages 20 (1): 139–63.

— ——. 1996. ‘Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew Syntax’. DLitt thesis, University of the Free State.

— ——. 1999. ‘Syntactic Aspects of Co-ordinate Subjects with Independent Personal Pronouns’. Journal of North-West Semitic Languages 25 (2): 75–99.

— ——. 2001. ‘The Distribution of Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew’. Journal of North-West Semitic Languages 27: 91–112.

— ——. 2002. ‘The Third Person Pronoun in Tripartite Verbless Clauses of Qumran Hebrew’. In Pronouns: Representation and Grammar, edited by Horst J. Simon and Heike Wiese, 161–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Naudé, Jacobus A., and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé. 2017. ‘At the Interface of Syntax and Prosody: Differentiating Left Dislocated and Tripartite Verbless Clauses in Biblical Hebrew’. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 48: 223–38.

O’Connor, Michael. 1993. ‘Focus (Casus Pendens, Left Dislocation), Topicalization, Right Dislocation, and Thematization Constructions in Biblical Hebrew’. Paper presented to the Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Group of the Society of Biblical Literature, 22 November 1993.

Oosthuizen, Johann. 2016. ‘Establishing Coreference in Left Dislocation Constructions’. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50: 47–63.

Pitcher, Sophia L. 2020. ‘A Prosodic Model for Tiberian Hebrew: A Complexity Approach to the Features, Structures, and Functions of the Masoretic Cantillation Accents’. PhD dissertation, University of the Free State.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. ‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’. In Elements of Grammar, edited by Liliane Haegeman, 281– 337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Shlonsky, Ur. 2014. ‘Topicalization and Focalization: A Preliminary Exploration of the Hebrew Left Periphery’. In Peripheries, edited by Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque, and Yoshio Endo, 327–41. Tokyo: H. Syobo.

Snyman, F. P. J. (Cobus), and Jacobus A. Naudé. 2003. ‘Sentence and Constituent Negation in Biblical Hebrew’. Journal for Semitics 12: 237–67.

Szabolcsi, Anna. 2006. ‘Strong vs. Weak Islands’. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, edited by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 4: 479–531. Oxford: Blackwell.

Van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. 2nd edition. London: Bloomsbury.

Van Riemsdijk, Henk C. 1997. ‘Left Dislocation’. In Materials on Left Dislocation, edited by Elena Anagnostopoulou, Henk C. van Riemsdijk, and Frans Zwarts, 1–10. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Westbury, Joshua R. 2014. ‘Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Account’. PhD dissertation, University of Stellenbosch.

— ——. 2016. ‘A Functional Profile of Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew’. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50: 65– 90.dio.org/10.5842/50-0-717.

Notes

1 This work is based on research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé UID 95926 and Jacobus A. Naudé UID 85902). The grantholders acknowledge that opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any publication generated by the NRF-supported research are those of the authors, and that the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.

2 See, for example, Ben-Horin (1976); Gross (1987); Khan (1988); (2016); Anangnostopoulou (1997); Anangnostopoulou, Van Riemsdijk, and Zwarts (1997); Rizzi (1997); Alexopoulou, Doron, and Heycock (2004); Alexiadou (2006); Korchin (2015); López (2016).

3 In a future article we consider the kind of intonational breaks between the dislocated constituent and the matrix sentence for each type of left dislocation, insofar as they can be determined in the Masoretic system of accents. For a prosodic account for differentiating left-dislocated and tripartite verbless clauses in Biblical Hebrew, see Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2017). For a prosodic account of the Masoretic accents and a preliminary examination of the intonational break in left dislocation and other constructions exhibiting the syntax-phonology interface, see Pitcher (2020, 241–358).

4 An additional type of left dislocation which is distinct from clitic left dislocation—broad subject—has been identified for Modern Hebrew (Alexopoulou, Doron and Heycock 2004; Doron and Heycock 2010), although the category has been disputed (Landau 2009).

5 Throughout we use representative examples of the syntactic phenomena discussed rather than comprehensive lists.

6 Naudé (1990; 1994a; 1994b; 1999); Holmstedt (2014); see also Shlonsky (2014).

7 Westbury (2014; 2016); see Van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze (2017, 510–18) for a description of both positions.

8 We understand Biblical Hebrew to exhibit unmarked word order of VSO (verb-subject-object) followed by other adjuncts (Naudé 1994b), although theoretically underlying word order in generative grammar is SVO. As a result, topicalisation may involve any non-verbal constituent occurring before the verb without a resumptive element. Multiple instances of topicalisation may occur within a sentence (e.g., Gen. 17.6, in which both the subject and a prepositional phrase are topicalised).

9 The object regularly follows this verb, either with (Exod. 1.17) or without (Num. 31.15) the definite object marker. For another example of the topicalised object preceding this verb, see Gen. 12.12.

10 For representative examples of the unmarked order of the object occurring after this verb, see Gen. 21.15 (for an NP object) and Gen. 37.22 (for an independent pronominal object). For topicalisation of the object constituent with this verb, see 1 Kgs 14.9.

11 For example, in Num. 14.24, the dislocated NP וְעַבְִּּדֵּ֣י כָּּ֗לב ‘and my servant Caleb’ is separated from the matrix sentence by a parenthetical sentence עֵּ֣קֶב ָּהּֽיְתָָּה ֤֙רּוַח ֙אַֹחֶֶרֹת ֙עִּמֹֻ֔ו ֙וַיְמַלַּ֖א אַחֲָּרָי ‘because another spirit is within him and he has followed after me’. The separation of the dislocated element and the parenthetical sentences is also indicated by the fact that the matrix sentence begins with a consecutive verb with an objective suffix, which serves as the resumptive element (וַהֲִּבּֽיאתִּיו ‘I will bring him’): וְעַבְִּּדֵּ֣י כָּּ֗לב עֵּ֣קֶב ָּהּֽיְתָָּה֤֙רּוַח֙אַֹחֶֶרֹת֙עִּמֹֻ֔ו וַיְמַלַּ֖א אַחֲָּרָי וַהֲִּבּֽיאתִּיו אֶל־הָֹּאֶָּרֹץ֙אֲשֶר־ ָּבֵּ֣א שָֻּ֔מָּה וְזְַרעַֹּ֖ו יֹוִּרשֶּֽנָּה׃ ‘But my servant Caleb—because a different spirit is with him and he has fully followed after me—I will bring him into the land that he has entered and his offspring will inherit it.’

12 For example, in Gen. 3.3, the quotative frame אַָּמֵּ֣ר אֱֹלהִּים ‘God said’ intervenes between the dislocated prepositional phrase (ּ֙ומִּּפְִּרֵּ֣י הָּעץ ֙אֲשֵֶּ֣ר ֒בְתֹוְך־הַגָּן) and its resumption as a pronominal suffix on a preposition (ּומִּּפְִּרֵּ֣י הָּעץ ֙אֲשֵֶּ֣ר ֙בְתֹוְך־הַגָּן ֒אָּמֵַּ֣ר ֙אֱֹלהִּים ל֤א ּֽ֙תאכְלֹּו ֙מִּמֶֻ֔נּו וְלא ֙תִּ֙גְעַּּ֖ו ָבֹו ּ֙פֶן־ְתמּֽתּון׃ ֙ :)מִּמֶֻ֔נּו ‘and from the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God said, “you must not eat from it and you must not touch it lest you die.”’

13 For example, in Exod. 12.15, the matrix sentence begins with a perfect consecutive verb (ִּכֵּ֣י׀ כָּל־אכֵּ֣ל חָּמּ֗ץ ְונִּכְְרתָָּה הַנֶ֤פֶש הַהִּוֹא ֙ מִּיִּשְָּראֻ֔ל ֙ :)ְונִּכְְרתָָּה ‘For every one who eats leavened bread, that person will be cut off from Israel.’

14 For example, in Job 38.29, the interrogative marker (ִּמֵּ֣י) intervenes between the dislocated NP (כְפר ָׁ֜שָּמַיִּם) and the matrix sentence (יְלָּּֽדֹו): ּוכְפר ָׁ֜שָּמַיִּם ִּמֵּ֣י ֙יְלָּּֽדֹו ‘and the frost of heaven, who bore it? ’

15 Negation with the interrogative marker and ל֙א, viz., הֲלא, is a special case; see Snyman and Naudé (2003) and Miller-Naudé and Naudé (2019).

16 Case agreement is used in the sense of abstract case marking within generative linguistics. Abstract case is assigned structurally, regardless of whether or not a language has morphologically realised case.

17 See also 2 Sam. 6.23.

18 Alexiadou (2006, 673–74, 682–85); see also Alexopoulou, Doron, and Heycock (2004). For an overview of the long linguistic history of ‘islands’, see Szabolcsi (2006).

19 See also Gen. 25.10; Deut. 12.11; Qoh. 3.16.

20 See also Gen. 37.30; 47.6; Deut. 30.1; 1 Sam. 17.14; 2 Sam. 21.2; Zech. 1.5.

21 See also Lev. 25.32; 2 Kgs 22.18b–19.

Auteurs

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé (PhD, University of Chicago, 1992) is a senior professor in the Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State (Bloemfontein, South Africa). Her research publications focus on Biblical Hebrew linguistics, especially syntax and pragmatics, the syntactic structures of Shilluk (a Nilo-Saharan language of South Sudan), and Bible translation. She is a co-editor of the series Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic (Eisenbrauns/Penn State University Press). She also co-edited Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns, 2012).

Jacobus A. Naudé (DLitt, University of the Free State, 1996) is a senior professor in the Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State (Bloemfontein, South Africa). His research publications focus on Biblical Hebrew linguistics, especially from generative and complexity theoretical perspectives, religious translation, and translation theory. He serves on the editorial boards of Folia Orientalia and Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages and is a co-editor of the series Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic (Eisenbrauns/Penn State University Press). He is a co-author of A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (2nd edition, Bloomsbury, 2017).

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search