From the Left Dislocation problem to this volume's "solution"In recent years, Left Dislocation (LD), and the related notion of constituent order, received much attention from both generative and cognitive-functional perspectives. The former has generally focused on formal properties of LD, while the latter has focused on the range of discourse-pragmatic functions associated crosslinguistically with this type of structure. Although each framework continues to yield valuable insights into the nature of LD across languages, a typologically comprehensive explanation of the construction continues to elude linguists from both generative and cognitive-functional perspectives. A primary reason for this is found in the inherent limitations that have constrained each framework. Generativists, on the one hand have gradually acknowledged that it is nearly impossible to describe a LD construction adequately without taking its functional dimension into account. On the other hand, functional scholars pay more attention to the structure of LD and, especially, to its formal contrast with, or in relation to, other constructions (see, Andrason 2016c&d; Andrason and Visser 2016). As a result, the need for a more unified formal-functional approach to LD has become increasingly evident.Although the entanglement of form and function is acknowledged by most linguists (both from generative and functional schools) who study LD, there is another question that still divides the two schools: what constitutes the typological profile of the grammatical category of LD, both in terms of form and function? This question relates to a more general debate polarizing generative grammar and cognitive linguistics, viz. the issue of categorization. The two approaches understand categories differently. In general terms, generative linguists tend to advocate for a set of criteria that a construction must meet in order to qualify as an instance of a given category. In contrast, cognitive linguists argue that a category should rather be described and analyzed by making use of family-resemblance relationships. Although the prototype is