[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2019-miller-naude-differentiating-dislocations-topicalisation-extraposition-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/) / Differentiating dislocations, topicalisation, and extraposition in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from negation

# Differentiating dislocations, topicalisation, and extraposition in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from negation

**Authors:** [Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/cynthia-l-miller-naude/), [Jacobus A. Naudé](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/authors/jacobus-a-naude/) · **Year:** 2019 · **Venue:** Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 56, 179–199 **Link:** [doi.org/10.5842/56-0-832](https://doi.org/10.5842/56-0-832) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

[**5** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W2999671008) openalex · 2026-10-18[**2** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/hbo-2019-miller-naude-differentiating-dislocations-topicalisation-extraposition-biblical/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)](https://openalex.org/S4306401280)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.5842/56-0-832)
- [PDF](https://spilplus.journals.ac.za/pub/article/download/832/789)
- [DOI 10.5842/56-0-832](https://doi.org/10.5842/56-0-832)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2999671008)

**Authors (2)**

1. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé
2. [Jacobus A. Naudé](https://openalex.org/A5058740558) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8680-0476) · h 13 · 654 citations · 158 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-18); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The paper sorts the constituents that stand at the edges of a Biblical Hebrew sentence into six constructions, by three features: inside or outside the matrix sentence, moved or base-generated, and resumed or not. Topicalisation (fronted, no resumptive) and extraposition (moved to the end, no resumptive, e.g. the relative clause split from its head in Exod 1:8) sit inside the sentence; left and right dislocation sit outside it and are picked up by a pronoun or clitic. Two further types, "heavy topicalisation" and the newly named "heavy extraposition", stand outside the sentence yet have no resumptive. Negation is the test: a topicalised constituent can be negated on its own (constituent negation, the negator before the fronted phrase), but a left-dislocated one never can; whatever negator is used (lōʾ, ʾal, ʾên, hălōʾ), its scope is the whole sentence. The authors argue, against Westbury, that resumption, not just fronting, is what separates left dislocation from topicalisation. The null subject of a finite verb does not count as a resumptive.

## Ideas

- I1. A deterministic edge classifier over the trees: a preverbal constituent with a coreferent pronoun or suffix in the clause → left dislocation (UD `dislocated`); without one → topicalisation (an ordinary dependent, fronted). Clause-final NP coreferent with an earlier pronoun → right dislocation. Count each over the Torah.
- I2. Boundary signals for dislocation: a wayyiqtol, an interrogative, הִנֵּה, a vocative, a parenthetical or כִּי between the fronted phrase and the verb puts the phrase outside the clause. Use them to attach the phrase as `dislocated` rather than `obj`/`obl`.
- I3. Negation scope as a feature: לֹא/אַל/אֵין directly before a fronted non-verbal phrase → constituent negation (scope = that phrase); before the verb → sentence negation. Write it into `prag` polarity so that only the negated constituent is denied.
- I4. Extraposed relative clauses (Exod 1:8 type): attach the אֲשֶׁר clause to its noun head across intervening material, not to the nearest word; measure how often our head rules get this wrong against PTNK.
- I5. Do not treat the pro-dropped subject of a finite verb as a resumptive: a fronted subject with no overt pronoun is topicalisation.

## For Mova

I1, I2, I4 and I5 belong in [Syntax: the clause and the sentence](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/08-syntax/) (dislocation, relative clauses) and in the head rules of `tools/macula` (the `dislocated` relation, chapter 13 §6), each checked against UD Ancient Hebrew PTNK with `macula compare`. I3 is a candidate rule for `tools/macula/src/prag.rs` (neg-polarity), and a paragraph in `08-syntax.md` on negation.

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.5842/56-0-832](https://doi.org/10.5842/56-0-832)

```
@article{millernaude2019differentiating,
  title = {{Differentiating dislocations, topicalisation, and extraposition in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence from negation}},
  author = {Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. and Naudé, Jacobus A.},
  journal = {DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)},
  year = {2019},
  doi = {10.5842/56-0-832},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5842/56-0-832}
}
```

- [← previous Is Biblical Hebrew a non-configurational language? Reconsidering the evidence from discontinuous phrases](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2019-kaajan-biblical-hebrew-non-configurational-language/)
- [next → Towards a Common Aim and Framework for Tools and Research in Support of Bible Translation and Biblical Language Online Learning](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2019-o-rear-towards-common-aim-framework-tools/)
- [↑ back to Ancient Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo/)

## References

47 references, 4 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Alexiadou, A. 2006. Left dislocation (including CCLD). In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 668–699. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch37 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591.ch37)
2. Alexopoulou, T., E. Doron and C. Heycock. 2004. Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation. In D. Adger, C. DeCat and G. Tsoulas (eds.) Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_14 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-1910-6_14)
3. Anangnostopoulou, E. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In E. Anangnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk and F. Zwarts (eds.) Materials on left dislocation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 151–192. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.14.11ana [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.14.11ana)
4. Baltin, M. 2006. Extraposition. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470996591.ch25 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/)
5. Blau, J. 1977. An adverbial construction in Hebrew and Arabic: Sentence adverbials in frontal position separated from the rest of the sentence. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 6 No. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0041977x00124607 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0041977x00124607)
6. Cowper, E. and V. DeCaen. 2017. Biblical Hebrew: A formal perspective on the left periphery. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 38: 1–33. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cowper%2C+E%2E+and+V%2E+DeCaen%2E+2017%2E+Biblical+Hebrew%3A+A+formal+perspective+on+the+left+periphery%2E+Toronto+Working+Papers+in+Linguistics+38%3A+1%E2%80%9333%2E)
7. Dahl, Ö. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17(1-2): 79–106. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dahl%2C+%C3%96%2E+1979%2E+Typology+of+sentence+negation%2E+Linguistics+17%281%2D2%29%3A+79%E2%80%93106%2E)
8. Doron, E. 2011. On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. In A. Rouveret (ed.) Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 289–317. https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.5.07dor [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.5.07dor)
9. Doron, E. and C. Heycock. 2010. In support of broad subjects in Hebrew. Lingua 120(7): 1764–1776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.12.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.12.002)
10. Gad-Horin, G. 1976. Aspects of syntactic preposing in spoken Hebrew. In P. Cole (ed.) Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. pp. 193–207. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gad%2DHorin%2C+G%2E+1976%2E+Aspects+of+syntactic+preposing+in+spoken+Hebrew%2E+In+P%2E+Cole+%28ed%2E%29+Studies+in+Modern+Hebrew+syntax+and+semantics%2E+Amsterdam%3A+North%2DHolland+Publishing+Company%2E+pp%2E+193%E2%80%93207%2E)
11. Gross, W. 1987. Die Pendenskonstruktion im Biblischen Hebräisch. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag. Haegeman. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gross%2C+W%2E+1987%2E+Die+Pendenskonstruktion+im+Biblischen+Hebr%C3%A4isch%2E+St%2E+Ottilien%3A+EOS+Verlag%2E+Haegeman%2E)
12. L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=L%2E+1994%2E+Introduction+to+government+and+binding+theory%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
13. Holmstedt, R.D. 2014. Critical at the margins: Edge constituents in Biblical Hebrew. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 17: 109–156. https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2011.v11.r8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2011.v11.r8)
14. Holmstedt, R.D. and A.R. Jones. 2017. Apposition in Biblical Hebrew: Structure and function. Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt 22: 21–51. https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2011.v11.r8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2011.v11.r8)
15. Horn, L.R. 2001. A natural history of negation. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Horn%2C+L%2ER%2E+2001%2E+A+natural+history+of+negation%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Center+for+the+Study+of+Language+and+Information%2E)
16. Khan, G. 1988. Studies in Semitic syntax. London: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Khan%2C+G%2E+1988%2E+Studies+in+Semitic+syntax%2E+London%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
17. Korchin, P. 2015. Suspense and authority amid Biblical Hebrew front dislocation. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 15: Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2015.v15.a1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2015.v15.a1) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2015-korchin-suspense-authority-amid-biblical-hebrew/)
18. Landau, I. 2009. Against broad subjects in Hebrew. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.004 Lingua 119(1): 89–101. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.004)
19. López, L. 2016. Dislocations and information structure. In C. Féry and S. Ishihara (eds.) Oxford handbook of information structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 383–421. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.003)
20. Lunn, N.P. 2006. Word-order variation in Biblical Hebrew poetry: Differentiating pragmatics and poetics. Bletchley: Paternoster Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgn066 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgn066)
21. McCloskey, J. 2006. Resumption. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell companion to syntax: Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996591)
22. Miller, C.L. 1995. The representation of speech in Biblical Hebrew narrative: A linguistic analysis. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller%2C+C%2EL%2E+1995%2E+The+representation+of+speech+in+Biblical+Hebrew+narrative%3A+A+linguistic+analysis%2E+Atlanta%2C+GA%3A+Scholars+Press%2E)
23. Miller, C.L. 2005. Ellipsis involving negation in biblical poetry. In R.L. Troxel, K.G. Friebel and D.R. Magary (eds.) Seeking out the wisdom of the ancients: Essays offered to honor Michael V. Fox on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. pp. 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/658975 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1086/658975)
24. Miller, C.L. 2007a. Constraints on ellipsis in Biblical Hebrew. In C.L. Miller (ed.) Studies in comparative Afroasiatic linguistics presented to Gene B. Gragg. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. pp. 165–180. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller%2C+C%2EL%2E+2007a%2E+Constraints+on+ellipsis+in+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+In+C%2EL%2E+Miller+%28ed%2E%29+Studies+in+comparative+Afroasiatic+linguistics+presented+to+Gene+B%2E+Gragg%2E+Chicago%3A+The+Oriental+Institute+of+the+U)
25. Miller, C.L. 2007b. The relation of coordination to verb gapping in biblical poetry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32(1): 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089207083764 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089207083764)
26. Miller-Naudé, C.L. 2019. Sentential edges and their structures in Biblical Hebrew. 8th Hyvernat Memorial Lecture, 28 March 2019. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Miller%2DNaud%C3%A9%2C+C%2EL%2E+2019%2E+Sentential+edges+and+their+structures+in+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+8th+Hyvernat+Memorial+Lecture%2C+28+March+2019%2E+Washington%2C+D%2EC%2E%3A+Catholic+University+of+America%2E)
27. Miller-Naudé, C.L. and J.A. Naudé. 2017. The scope of negation inside and outside of the Biblical Hebrew prepositional phrase. In A. Moshavi and T. Notarius (eds.) Advances in Biblical Hebrew linguistics: Data, methods, and analyses. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. pp. 297–319. https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2018.v18.r2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2018.v18.r2)
28. Miller-Naudé, C.L. and J.A. Naudé. 2019. Differentiating dislocations in Biblical Hebrew. Paper presented at the Biblical Hebrew and Rabbinic Hebrew: New Perspectives in Philology and Linguistics Conference, 10 July 2019, University of Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.5774/48-0-293 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5774/48-0-293) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2018-naude-interface-syntax-prosody-differentiating-left/)
29. Naudé, J.A. 1990. A syntactic analysis of dislocation in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 16: 115–130. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Naud%C3%A9%2C+J%2EA%2E+1990%2E+A+syntactic+analysis+of+dislocation+in+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+16%3A+115%E2%80%93130%2E)
30. Naudé, J.A. 1991. Qumran Hebrew as a null subject language. South African Journal of Linguistics 9(4): 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10118063.1991.9724303 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/10118063.1991.9724303)
31. Naudé, J.A. 1993. On subject pronoun and subject noun asymmetry: A preliminary survey of Northwest Semitic. South African Journal of Linguistics 11(1): 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10118063.1993.9724323 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/)
32. Naudé, J.A. 1994. The verbless clause with pleonastic pronoun in Biblical Aramaic. Journal for Semitics 6(1): 74–93. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Naud%C3%A9%2C+J%2EA%2E+1994%2E+The+verbless+clause+with+pleonastic+pronoun+in+Biblical+Aramaic%2E+Journal+for+Semitics+6%281%29%3A+74%E2%80%9393%2E)
33. Naudé, J.A. 1996. Independent Personal Pronouns in Qumran Hebrew Syntax. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of the Free State. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Naud%C3%A9%2C+J%2EA%2E+1996%2E+Independent+Personal+Pronouns+in+Qumran+Hebrew+Syntax%2E+Unpublished+PhD+dissertation%2E+University+of+the+Free+State%2E)
34. Naudé, J.A. 1999. Syntactic aspects of co-ordinate subjects with independent personal pronouns. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 25(2): 75–99. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Naud%C3%A9%2C+J%2EA%2E+1999%2E+Syntactic+aspects+of+co%2Dordinate+subjects+with+independent+personal+pronouns%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+25%282%29%3A+75%E2%80%9399%2E)
35. Naudé, J.A. and G.A. Rendsburg. 2013. Negation: Pre-modern Hebrew. In G. Khan (ed.) Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics. Leiden: Brill. pp. 801–811. https://doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_ehll_com_00000810 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_ehll_com_00000810)
36. Oosthuizen, J. 2016. Establishing coreference in left dislocation constructions. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50: 47–63. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Oosthuizen%2C+J%2E+2016%2E+Establishing+coreference+in+left+dislocation+constructions%2E+Stellenbosch+Papers+in+Linguistics+Plus+50%3A+47%E2%80%9363%2E)
37. Payne, J.R. 1985. Negation. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 197–242. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Payne%2C+J%2ER%2E+1985%2E+Negation%2E+In+T%2E+Shopen+%28ed%2E%29+Language+typology+and+syntactic+description%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E+pp%2E+197%E2%80%93242%2E)
38. Radford, A. 2009. Analyzing English sentences: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Radford%2C+A%2E+2009%2E+Analyzing+English+sentences%3A+A+minimalist+approach%2E+Cambridge%3A+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
39. Redd, J.S. 2014. Constituent postponement in Biblical Hebrew verse. Göttingen: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvk12t02 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvk12t02)
40. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 281–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7)
41. Shlonsky, U. 2014. Topicalization and focalization: A preliminary exploration of the Hebrew left periphery. In A. Cardinaletti, G. Cinque and Y. Endo (eds.) Peripheries. Tokyo: H. Syobo. pp. 327–341. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shlonsky%2C+U%2E+2014%2E+Topicalization+and+focalization%3A+A+preliminary+exploration+of+the+Hebrew+left+periphery%2E+In+A%2E+Cardinaletti%2C+G%2E+Cinque+and+Y%2E+Endo+%28eds%2E%29+Peripheries%2E+Tokyo%3A+H%2E+Syobo%2E+pp%2E+327%E2%80%93341%2E)
42. Snyman, F.P.J. 2004. The scope of the negative lōʾ in Biblical Hebrew. Acta Academica Supplementum 3: 1–315. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Snyman%2C+F%2EP%2EJ%2E+2004%2E+The+scope+of+the+negative+l%C5%8D%CA%BE+in+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+Acta+Academica+Supplementum+3%3A+1%E2%80%93315%2E)
43. Snyman, F.P.J. and J.A. Naudé. 2003. Sentence and constituent negation in Biblical Hebrew. Journal for Semitics 12(2): 237–267. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Snyman%2C+F%2EP%2EJ%2E+and+J%2EA%2E+Naud%C3%A9%2E+2003%2E+Sentence+and+constituent+negation+in+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+Journal+for+Semitics+12%282%29%3A+237%E2%80%93267%2E)
44. Van der Merwe, C.H.J., J.A. Naudé and H.J. Kroeze. 2017. A Biblical Hebrew reference grammar. 2nd edition. London: Bloomsbury. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Van+der+Merwe%2C+C%2EH%2EJ%2E%2C+J%2EA%2E+Naud%C3%A9+and+H%2EJ%2E+Kroeze%2E+2017%2E+A+Biblical+Hebrew+reference+grammar%2E+2nd+edition%2E+London%3A+Bloomsbury%2E)
45. Westbury, J.R. 2014. Left Dislocation in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Account. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Westbury%2C+J%2ER%2E+2014%2E+Left+Dislocation+in+Biblical+Hebrew%3A+A+Cognitive+Linguistic+Account%2E+Unpublished+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/)
46. Westbury, J.R. 2016. A functional profile of left dislocation in Biblical Hebrew. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50: 65–90. https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5842/50-0-717) [our card](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/hbo-2016-westbury-functional-profile-left-dislocation-biblical/)
47. Wilson, D.J. 2019. Wayhî and theticity in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 45(1): 89–118. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Wilson%2C+D%2EJ%2E+2019%2E+Wayh%C3%AE+and+theticity+in+Biblical+Hebrew%2E+Journal+of+Northwest+Semitic+Languages+45%281%29%3A+89%E2%80%93118%2E)