[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2016-westbury-functional-profile-left-dislocation-biblical/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [Ancient Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo/) / A functional profile of Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew

# A functional profile of Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew

**Authors:** [Josh Westbury](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/josh-westbury/) · **Year:** 2016 · **Venue:** Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50, 65–90 **Link:** [doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

[**4** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W2582181198) openalex-snapshot · 2026-10-14[**5** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/hbo-2016-westbury-functional-profile-left-dislocation-biblical/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus](https://openalex.org/S4210212394)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717)
- [PDF](https://spilplus.journals.ac.za/pub/article/download/717/687)
- [DOI 10.5842/50-0-717](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2582181198)

**Authors (1)**

1. [Josh Westbury](https://openalex.org/A5019886629) h 4 · 58 citations · 10 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex-snapshot (2026-10-14); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

From over 650 verbal left-dislocation (LD) tokens in Genesis–2 Kings (his 2014 thesis), the author sets out seven overlapping construction types around a typological prototype, then their functions. Prototype (about 20%): a referring phrase before and detached from the clause, resumed inside it by a pronoun, suffix or epithet ("from the tree of knowledge …, you shall not eat from it", Gen 2:17). Others: non-resumptive LD (about 7%, detached by a clause-boundary וְ or wayyiqtol, or no free valency slot); multiple LD (several dislocates); pronominal LD (about 2%); anaphoric כֵּן (about 7%, a כַּאֲשֶׁר/כְּ phrase resumed by fronted כֵּן "so"); conditional LD (about 5%, a noun or indefinite before a כִּי/אִם protasis, nearly always casuistic law: "a man or a woman, if they commit …", Num 5:6); and temporal LD (a time expression, often after וַיְהִי). The core function is to (re)activate a referent of low accessibility, splitting "who" from "what role"; on top of that it announces a topic (primary = subject, secondary = object), a focus, or a frame without a resumptive (1 Sam 2:13). With an already active referent, LD is a non-prototypical, marked use that triggers extra implicatures.

## Ideas

- I1. Write the seven types as detectors over our trees, each with its fixed cue: resumptive pronoun/suffix agreeing with the fronted NP; כַּאֲשֶׁר … כֵּן; NP + כִּי/אִם + protasis in law; time phrase + וְ/wayyiqtol; dislocated pronoun. Count each type in the Torah and compare with the paper's shares for Genesis–Kings.
- I2. Conditional LD is the casuistic law opening (אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה כִּי …; נֶפֶשׁ כִּי …): a `prag` rule that marks the sentence as a legal case (form: conditional, act: law) and links the dislocate to the actor of the apodosis.
- I3. Accessibility as the trigger: test whether dislocated referents in the Torah were last mentioned far back (sentence distance) or never, against fronted-but-not-dislocated subjects; a measurable check of the paper's claim.
- I4. UD annotation: dislocate → `dislocated` on the clause head, resumptive keeps its own role; anaphoric כֵּן → `advmod` with the כַּאֲשֶׁר clause as `advcl` of the main verb.

## For Mova

I1 and I4 go into [Syntax: the clause and the sentence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/08-syntax/) (dislocation) and the head rules of `tools/macula` (`13-mova-tools.md` §6). I2 is a candidate rule (`law3` is the nearest existing one) in `tools/macula/src/prag.rs`, described in `09-discourse.md` (procedure and law). I3 is a count for `09-discourse.md` (participant tracking).

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.5842/50-0-717](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717)

```
@inproceedings{westbury2016functional,
  title = {{A functional profile of Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew}},
  author = {Westbury, Josh},
  booktitle = {Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus},
  year = {2016},
  doi = {10.5842/50-0-717},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717}
}
```

- [← previous Approaching the mountain of Exodus 19: thou shalt explore syntax first](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2016-talstra-approaching-mountain-exodus-19-thou/)
- [next → Interactive Tools and Tasks for the Hebrew Bible: From Language Learning to Textual Criticism](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2016-winther-nielsen-interactive-tools-tasks-hebrew-bible/)
- [↑ back to Ancient Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo/)

## References

34 references, 3 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Andrason, A. 2016a. Left Dislocation in Arabic: The complexity of form and meaning. Stellenbosch Papers in Lingusitics Plus 50. 111–138. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-719)
2. Andrason, A. 2016b. To resume or not to resume: Some remarks on ‘resumption’ in left dislocation constructions in Polish, and its relevance for Biblical Hebrew. Stellenbosch Papers in Lingusitics Plus 50. 185–199. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Andrason%2C+A%2E+2016b%2E+To+resume+or+not+to+resume%3A+Some+remarks+on+%E2%80%98resumption%E2%80%99+in+left+dislocation+constructions+in+Polish%2C+and+its+relevance+for+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+Stellenbosch+Papers+in+Lingusitics+Plus) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2016-andrason-resume-resume-some-remarks-resumption/)
3. Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ariel%2C+M%2E+1990%2E+Accessing+Noun+Phrase+Antecedents%2E+London%3A+Routledge%2E)
4. Ariel, M. 2001. Accessibility Theory: an overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, and W. Spooren (Eds.) Text Representation: Linguistic and Psychological Aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 29–88. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ariel%2C+M%2E+2001%2E+Accessibility+Theory%3A+an+overview%2E+In+T%2E+Sanders%2C+J%2E+Schilperoord%2C+and+W%2E+Spooren+%28Eds%2E%29+Text+Representation%3A+Linguistic+and+Psychological+Aspects%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E+pp%2E+29%E2%80%9388)
5. Boas, H. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, and G. Trousdale (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 233–254. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0013)
6. Croft, W.A. and Cruse, A.D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Croft%2C+W%2EA%2E+and+Cruse%2C+A%2ED%2E+2004%2E+Cognitive+Linguistics%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
7. de Vries, L. 2005. Towards a Typology of Tail–Head Linkage in Papuan Languages. Studies in Language 29(2). pp. 363–384. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.29.2.04vri)
8. Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Erteschik%2DShir%2C+N%2E+2007%2E+Information+Structure%3A+The+Syntax%2DDiscourse+Interface%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
9. Evans, V. and Green, M. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Evans%2C+V%2E+and+Green%2C+M%2E+2006%2E+Cognitive+linguistics%3A+An+Introduction%2E+Edinburgh%3A+Edinburgh+University+Press%2E)
10. Filmore, C. 1982. Frame Semantics. In The Linguistics Society of Korea (Eds.) Linguistics in The Morning Calm. Soeul: Hanshin. pp. 111–138. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Filmore%2C+C%2E+1982%2E+Frame+Semantics%2E+In+The+Linguistics+Society+of+Korea+%28Eds%2E%29+Linguistics+in+The+Morning+Calm%2E+Soeul%3A+Hanshin%2E+pp%2E+111%E2%80%93138%2E)
11. Floor, S. 2004. From Information Structure, Topic and Focus, to Theme in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. PhD dissertation. University of Stellenbosch. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Floor%2C+S%2E+2004%2E+From+Information+Structure%2C+Topic+and+Focus%2C+to+Theme+in+Biblical+Hebrew+Narrative%2E+PhD+dissertation%2E+University+of+Stellenbosch%2E) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2004-floor-information-structure-topic-focus-theme/)
12. Givon, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3.01giv)
13. Givoń, T. 2001. Syntax: An introduction. (2nd Vols). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Givo%C5%84%2C+T%2E+2001%2E+Syntax%3A+An+introduction%2E+%282nd+Vols%29%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins+Publishing+Company%2E)
14. Goldberg, A. 2013. Constructionist Approaches. In T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 15–31. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Goldberg%2C+A%2E+2013%2E+Constructionist+Approaches%2E+In+T%2E+Hoffmann+and+G%2E+Trousdale+%28Eds%2E%29+Oxford+Handbook+of+Construction+Grammar%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E+pp%2E+15%E2%80%9331%2E)
15. Gross, W. 1987. Die Pendenskonstruktion im biblischen Hebräisch. St. Otillien: EOS. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gross%2C+W%2E+1987%2E+Die+Pendenskonstruktion+im+biblischen+Hebr%C3%A4isch%2E+St%2E+Otillien%3A+EOS%2E)
16. Gundel, J.K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language 69(2). 274–307. [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/416535)
17. Heimerdinger, J.-M. 1999. Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Heimerdinger%2C+J%2E%2DM%2E+1999%2E+Topic%2C+Focus+and+Foreground+in+Ancient+Hebrew+Narratives%2E+Sheffield%3A+Sheffield+Academic+Press%2E)
18. Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, L.J. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hengeveld%2C+K%2E+and+Mackenzie%2C+L%2EJ%2E+2008%2E+Functional+Discourse+Grammar%3A+A+Typologically%2Dbased+Theory+of+Language+Structure%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
19. Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. (Eds.) 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hoffmann%2C+T%2E+and+Trousdale%2C+G%2E+%28Eds%2E%29+2013%2E+The+Oxford+Handbook+of+Construction+Grammar%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
20. Khan, G. 1988. Studies in Semitic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Khan%2C+G%2E+1988%2E+Studies+in+Semitic+Syntax%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
21. Khan, G. 2016. Left Dislocation in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic Dialects. Stellenbosch Papers in Lingusitics Plus 50. 91–110. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-718)
22. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lakoff%2C+G%2E+1987%2E+Women%2C+Fire%2C+and+Dangerous+Things%3A+What+Categories+Reveal+about+the+Mind%2E+Chicago%3A+University+of+Chicago+Press%2E)
23. Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lambrecht%2C+K%2E+1994%2E+Information+Structure+and+Sentence+Form%3A+Topic%2C+focus%2C+and+the+Mental+Representations+of+Discourse+Referents%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
24. Lambrecht, K. 2001. Dislocation. In M. Haspelmath, E. Konig, W. Oesterreicher, and W. Raible (Eds.) Typology and Language Universals. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 1050–1078. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lambrecht%2C+K%2E+2001%2E+Dislocation%2E+In+M%2E+Haspelmath%2C+E%2E+Konig%2C+W%2E+Oesterreicher%2C+and+W%2E+Raible+%28Eds%2E%29+Typology+and+Language+Universals%2E+Berlin%3A+Walter+de+Gruyter%2E+pp%2E+1050%E2%80%931078%2E)
25. Levinsohn, S. 2000. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek. Summer Institute of Linguistics. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Levinsohn%2C+S%2E+2000%2E+Discourse+Features+of+New+Testament+Greek%2E+Summer+Institute+of+Linguistics%2E)
26. Naudé, J. 1990. A Syntactic Analysis of Dislocations in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Language 16. 115–130. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Naud%C3%A9%2C+J%2E+1990%2E+A+Syntactic+Analysis+of+Dislocations+in+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Language+16%2E+115%E2%80%93130%2E)
27. Nikolaeva, I. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39(1). 1– 49. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.006)
28. Prince, E. 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In Cole, P. (Ed.) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 223–255. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Prince%2C+E%2E+1981%2E+Toward+a+Taxonomy+of+Given%2DNew+Information%2E+In+Cole%2C+P%2E+%28Ed%2E%29+Radical+Pragmatics%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E+pp%2E+223%E2%80%93255%2E)
29. Taylor, J.R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Taylor%2C+J%2ER%2E+1995%2E+Linguistic+Categorization%3A+Prototypes+in+Linguistic+Theory%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
30. Tizon-Couto, D. 2012. Left Dislocation in English: A Functional-Discoursal approach. Switzerland: Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Tizon%2DCouto%2C+D%2E+2012%2E+Left+Dislocation+in+English%3A+A+Functional%2DDiscoursal+approach%2E+Switzerland%3A+Peter+Lang+AG%2C+Internationaler+Verlag+der+Wissenschaften%2E)
31. Van der Merwe, C.H.J., Kroeze, J. and Naudé, J. 1999. Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+der+Merwe%2C+C%2EH%2EJ%2E%2C+Kroeze%2C+J%2E+and+Naud%C3%A9%2C+J%2E+1999%2E+Biblical+Hebrew+Reference+Grammar%2E+Sheffield%3A+Sheffield+Academic+Press%2E)
32. Villalba, X. 2000. The Syntax of Sentence Periphery. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Villalba%2C+X%2E+2000%2E+The+Syntax+of+Sentence+Periphery%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+Universitat+Aut%C3%B2noma+de+Barcelona%2E)
33. Westbury, J. 2014. Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Account. PhD dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Westbury%2C+J%2E+2014%2E+Left+Dislocation+in+Biblical+Hebrew%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Account%2E+PhD+dissertation%2C+University+of+Stellenbosch%2E) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2014-westbury-left-dislocation-biblical-hebrew-cognitive/)
34. Westbury, J. 2016. Left Dislocation: a typological overview. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50. 21–45. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-715)