Sluicing has traditionally been analyzed as an operation involving wh-movement and deletion (
By formalizing an analysis within a late insertion approach to the syntax-morphology interface, I argue that not only do sluices in French involve full structure, but that these involve movement as well. I assume that the wh-word is initially represented in the syntactic derivation as an abstract feature bundle. The morphological form is determined in the mapping of syntax to morphology by locality-dependent Vocabulary Insertion (VI) rules that are sensitive to C. These rules apply only after ellipsis occurs. Additionally, following Thoms (
Sluicing, the construction exemplified in (1), has attracted considerable attention over the years, with the debate focused on how to interpret the “missing” material after the wh-word. The most often adopted generative analysis of sluicing has been the Move-and-Delete Approach (MDA; see
(1) | Joe is eating something, but I do not know what. |
(2) | Joe is eating something, but I do not know what Joe is eating <what>. |
The crux of this analysis claims that sluicing involves two steps: wh-movement (or an analogous Ā-movement) and deletion, in that order. Wh-movement proceeds as it would in non-elliptical contexts, and deletion targets material below the wh-word. However, this analysis has not gone unchallenged. Alternative analyses have suggested that what has been elided is not identical to the matrix clause (3a) (
(3) | a. | Joe is eating something, but I do not know what |
b. | Joe is eating something, but I do not know |
|
c. | Joe is eating something, but I do not know what. |
In languages such as English, assuming movement is involved is consistent with more general processes, namely wh-question formation. In other languages, particularly French, the necessity of (overt) movement to feed sluicing is not as clear. Both ex-situ and in-situ questions are possible; in other words, there is no independent reason to believe that the wh-word
(4)
a.
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
ce que/*que/*quoi
what
Jean
Jean
mange.
eat.3
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know what Jean is eating.’
b.
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing,
mais
but
je
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
*ce que/*que/
what
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know what.’
(5)
a.
what
mange-Jean?
eat.3
‘What is Jean eating?’
b.
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
*que/
what
Lit. ‘Jean is eating what?’
Given this observation, it would seem that French is a challenge for the MDA. If the wh-word remains in situ, this raises questions as to how sluices in French are derived. Dagnac (
The focus of this research is to provide an analysis for sluicing in French, with attention on
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, I review theories on sluicing that have been proposed in the literature. In Section 3, I discuss sluicing data from French more generally, and the puzzle that
The MDA has been argued for most notably by Ross (
(6) | a. | John ate something, but I do not know [what [ |
b. | What (do) you think John ate <what>? |
However, sluicing is still attested in languages without overt wh-movement. As a result, more recent movement-based approaches have framed sluicing in terms of Ā-movement and not necessarily wh-movement. For example, Takahashi (
The MDA also assumes that there is structure at the ellipsis site. This has been primarily motivated by what have been referred to as connectivity effects, including (i) case-matching, (ii) preposition-stranding (p-stranding), and (iii) binding facts. In languages with case-marking, the wh-word in the remnant often has the same case as in the non-elided counterpart. This is exemplified in German as seen in examples (7–8) from Ross (
(7)
Er
he
will
wants
jemandem
schmeicheln,
flatter
aber
but
sie
they
wissen
know
nicht,
not
{*wer /
who.
*wen /
who.
wem}.
‘He wants to flatter someone, but they don’t know who.’
(8)
Er
he
will
wants
jemanden
someone.
loben,
praise
aber
but
sie
they
wissen
know
nicht,
not
{*wer /
who.
wen /
who.
*wem}.
who.
‘He wants to praise someone, but they don’t know who.’
Another source of motivation for structure at the ellipsis site comes from binding facts. As pointed out by Lasnik (
(9) | Every linguist1 criticized some of his1 work, but I’m not sure how much of his1 work <every linguist1 criticized |
Additional support for structure comes from preposition-stranding. Merchant (
(10) | a. | John is playing soccer with someone. |
b. | Who is John playing soccer with <who>? | |
c. | John is playing soccer with someone, but I do not know who <John is playing soccer with>. |
Greek, conversely, is a language that does not tolerate p-stranding in wh-questions; the preposition must be pied-piped with the wh-word. In sluicing, the preposition must surface with the wh-remnant, suggesting the same mechanisms are involved in both cases (see (11) from Merchant).
(11)
I
the
Anna
Anna
milise
spoke
me
with
kapjon,
someone
alla
but
dhe
not
ksero
I.know
*(me)
with
pjon
who
‘Anna was speaking with someone, but I don’t know with who.’
While the p-stranding generalization holds in several languages, there are languages that do not conform to the generalization, but still exhibit sluicing. An example of this comes from Brazilian Portuguese, which behaves like English in terms of sluicing— allowing the preposition to be stranded— but conversely behaves like Greek in terms of wh-questions, prohibiting p-stranding in this context (see 12 below, slightly modified from
(12)
a.
Com
with
quem
who
que
that
a
the
Maria
Maria
dançou
danced
<com quem>?
‘With whom did Maria dance?’
b.
*Quem
who
que
that
a
the
Maria
Maria
dançou
danced
com
with
<quem>?
‘Who did Maria dance with?’
c.
A
the
Maria
Maria
dancou
danced
com
with
alguem,
someone
mas
but
eu
I
nao
not
lembro
remember
(com)
(with)
quem.
who
‘Maria danced with someone, but I don’t remember who.’
Rodrigues, Nevins & Vincente (
(13)
O
the
João
J
dançou
danced
com
with
alguém
someone
mas
but
eu
I
não
not
sei
know
[quem
who
[é
is
que
that
o
the
João
J
dançou]].
danced
RN&V (2009) extend their analysis to make the stronger claim that any language that seems to violate the p-stranding generalization has pseudo-sluicing, at least as an available (potentially last resort) option. I will return to this issue in Section 3, as French is often cited as a counterexample to the p-stranding generalization as well.
There have been alternatives to the MDA that have been proposed in the literature; most of these share the idea that there is no movement involved in sluicing, but differ in terms of the formulation of the ellipsis site, including whether or not there is structure, and the size of the ellipsis site. One such alternative is the LF Copying approach (see
Non-movement-based approaches (with or without structure) capture the fact that sluicing either does not exhibit island effects or somehow ameliorates or fixes island violations, a well-known fact first noticed by Ross (
(14) | They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I can’t remember which. |
(15) | They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I can’t remember which |
(Balkan language) [ |
At the same time, this could nevertheless suggest that the structure at the ellipsis site is somehow non-isomorphic. Barros et al. (
(16) | They want to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I can’t remember which |
All of these approaches require that the interpretation of sluices be constrained in some way via the semantics if there is no underlying syntactic material that is being targeted.
It has traditionally assumed that sluicing targets constituents (namely, TP). However, recently it has been suggested that non-constituents are in fact able to be deleted (
(17)
Wer
who
hat
has
MP
die
the
Leute
people
eingeladen?
invited
‘Who invited the people?’
(18)
*[Wer
who
denn]
MP
hat
has
die
the
Leute
people
eingeladen?
invited
‘Who invited the people?’
(19)
A:
Peter invited a couple of people.
B:
WEN
who
denn?
MP
‘Who?’
In this case, they argue that semantic content, and not syntactic constituents, may be deleted; backgrounded information that corresponds to a QUD and is recoverable is able to be elided (20). MPs are never backgrounded, and thus “escape” deletion.
(20)
WENF
who
hat Peter
has Peter
denn
MP
eingeladen?
invited
‘Who?’
If something that cannot move is able to survive ellipsis, then movement is not required to generate wh-remnants.
Beyond the German examples, there have been other attempts in the literature to formalize an in situ approach to sluicing. Abe (
(21) | John ate something, but I do not know [CP [C [TP |
A more recent approach comes from Griffiths (
Before mentioning the sluicing data, it is important to discuss how wh-questions are formed in French. As mentioned, French has both fronted (ex-situ) wh-questions and wh-in situ questions. The form of the wh-word is often the same in both cases.
(22)
a.
Où
where
vas-tu?
go.2
[wh-ex-situ]
‘Where are you going?’
b.
Tu
you
vas
go.2
où?
where
[wh-in situ]
Lit. ‘You are going where?
However, this is not the case for what-questions. In matrix wh-questions, the wh-ex-situ form is
(23)
a.
what
regardes-tu?
watch.2
[wh-ex situ]
‘What are you watching?’
b.
*Quoi
what
regardes-tu?
watch.2
‘What are you watching?
c.
Tu
you
regardes
watch.2
what
[wh-in situ]
Lit. ‘You are watching what?’
d.
*Tu
you
regardes
watch.2
que?
what
Lit. ‘You are watching what?’
The former is traditionally analyzed as a wh-clitic, and the latter as the strong form (see
(24)
a.
*Que
what
tu
you
fais?
do.2
‘What are you doing?’
b.
Où
where
tu
you
vas?
go.2
‘Where are you going?’
A potential objection to
(25)
Que
what
devil
a-t-il
has-he
dit?
said
‘What the hell did he say?’
However, in this case,
While
(26)
[À
to
quoi]
what
ça
this
sert?
serve.3
‘What is the purpose?’
(27)
[De
of
quoi]
what
Marie
Marie
joue?
play.3
‘What does Marie play?’
(28)
[Quoi
what
d’autre]
of-other
est
be.3
possible?
possible
‘What else is possible?’
This is also the only form that surfaces in coordinated questions (29–30), potentially as part of, or forming, Coordinated Phrase (ConjP) viz. Munn (
(29)
Qui
who
ou
or
quoi
what
est
be.3
à
at
la
the
porte?
door
‘Who or what is at the door?’
(30)
Qui
who
et
and
quoi
what
habite
live.3
ici?
here
‘Who and what lives here?’
While
(31)
Que/quoi
what
faire?
do.
‘What to do?’
Lastly, returning to the third form,
(32)
a.
Je
I
me
self
demande
ask.1
ce
what
que
you
tu
regardes.
watch.2
‘I wonder what you are watching.’
b.
*Je
I
me
self
demande
ask.1
que
what
regardes-tu.
watch.2
‘I wonder what are you watching.’
c.
*Je
I
me
self
demande
ask.1
que
what
tu
you
regardes
watch.2
quoi.
what
‘I wonder you are watching what.’
The inclusion of
In sum, all of the examples in this section highlight that the form of the wh-word is highly context-dependent, and that the distribution of
First, in terms of sluicing more generally in French, applying the traditional diagnostics concerning connectivity (see Section 2) suggests that there is structure at the ellipsis site. Unlike languages with rich case-marking like German, modern French does not have any remnants of case, so this will not be a helpful diagnostic. However, there are other indicators of there being structure. First, support for structure at the ellipsis site in French comes from the binding facts. As in languages like English, binding into a wh-remnant is also possible in French (33).
(33)
Chaque
each
linguiste1
linguist
a
have.3
critiqué
criticized
une
a
partie
part
de
of
son1
his
travail,
work
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
combien
how-much
de
of
son1
his
travail
work
<chaque
each
linguiste1
linguist
a
have.3
critiqué
criticized
‘Each linguist criticized part of his work, but I do not know how much of his work (each linguist criticized).’
Lastly, in terms of preposition-stranding, French, like Brazilian Portuguese, at times conforms to the generalization, and at other times violates it. As mentioned, when the wh-phrase is embedded inside a
(34)
a.
À
of
quoi/qui
what/who
Jean
Jean
pense ?
think.3
‘What/who is Jean thinking (about)?’
b.
*Quoi/qui
what/who
Jean
Jean
pense
think.3
à?
of
‘What/who is Jean thinking (about)?’
In sluicing, the picture is more complicated. Merchant (2000) reports that (35) is ungrammatical without the preposition. However, some speakers from France find (35) to be perfectly acceptable. There are also well-known counterexamples to the p-stranding generalization, namely (36) from Rodrigues, Nevins & Vicente (RN&V).
(35)
Merchant (2000)
Anne
Anne
l’a
it-has
offert
offered
à
to
quelqu’un
someone
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
*(à)
(to)
qui.
who
‘Anne offered it to someone, but I do not know (to) whom.’
(36)
RN&V (2009)
Jean
Jean
a
has.3
dansé
danced
avec
with
une
one
des
of.the
filles,
girls,
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
laquelle.
which
‘Jean danced with one of the girls, but I don’t know which one.’
Here I argue that there is a potential solution to the differing judgments (and potential dialectal variation) observed with (35), and the acceptability of (36), based off of the argumentation found in RN&V (2009). The sluicing examples that seem to violate the p-stranding generalization may actually have a cleft source; that is, rather than the ellipsis site containing a full clause that is identical to the antecedent, it may contain a cleft (with the wh-remnant corresponding to the pivot of the cleft). It could be that p-stranding is more acceptable when cleft continuations are possible (as in 37–38). As a result, it may be that a difference in how speakers are interpreting the ellipsis site could give rise to a difference in grammaticality judgments.
(37)
Anne
Anne
l’a
it-have.3
offert
offered
à
to
quelqu’un
someone
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
not
pas qui
who
(c’est).
(it be.3
‘Anne offered it to someone, but I don’t know know who (it is).’
(38)
Jean
Jean
a
has.3
dansé
danced
avec
with
une
one
des
of.the
filles,
girls,
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
laquelle
which
(c’est).
(it be.3
‘Jean danced with one of the girls, but I don’t know which one (it is).’
The acceptability of examples like (35/37) would then be consistent with RN&V (2009) and would thus not be a problem for the p-stranding generalization. For most wh-words in French, clefting is indeed a plausible strategy, given that cleft continuations are grammatical (39–40).
(39)
Jean
Jean
est
be.3
allée
gone
quelque
some
part,
place
mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas
not
où
where
(c’est).
(it-be.3
‘Jean went somewhere, but I do not know where (it is).’
(40)
Jean
Jean
a
has.3
vu
seen
quelqu’un,
someone,
mais
but
je
I
sais
know.SG
pas
not
qui
who
(c’est).
(it be.3
‘Jean saw someone, but I do not know who (it is).’
Cleft continuations with
(41)
?Jean
Jean
a
has.3
besoin
need
de
of
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
(de)
(of)
quoi.
what
‘Jean needs something, but I do not know what.’
(42)
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
quoi
what
(*c’est).
(it-be.3
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know what (it is).’
This remains true regardless of the position of the cleft with respect to the wh-word (43). The examples in (43–44) are marginal at best, and (45), the non-elided version of (43) with a cleft, is also ungrammatical.
(43)
??Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
c’est
this-be.3
quoi.
what
Lit. ‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know it is what.’
(44)
??Je
I
sais
know.1
pas
not
c’est
this-be.3
quoi.
what
Lit. ‘I do not know this is what.’
(45)
*Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
c’est
this-be.3
quoi
what
qu’il
that-he
mange.
eat.3
Lit. ‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know it is what that he is eating.’
The unacceptability of a cleft with
Consistent with this observation, Merchant (
(46)
a.
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
un
a
sandwich,
sandwich
mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas
not
quoi
what
d’autre
of-else
(*c’est).
(it-be.3
‘Jean is eating a sandwich, but I do not know what else.’
b.
Quoi
what
d’autre
of-else
(*c’est)?
(it be.3
‘What else (is it)?’
Given these restrictions, I argue that while clefting may indeed be a possible source for sluicing with most wh-words in French—explaining the acceptability of (35)— it is crucially not for
As mentioned,
(47)
Jean
Jean
mange
eats.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
[Jean manage
[Jean eats.3
quoi].
what]
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know what.’
All other wh-words are homophonous between fronted and in situ forms—could this suggest that wh-remnants are actually always in situ? And that sluicing in French only gives the appearance of movement?
Beyond the traditional diagnostics mentioned in Section 2 and 3, there are reasons to think that the wh-remnant can be located in CP; for one, although wh-in situ is available with most cases, it is not possible with
(48)
a.
Pourquoi
why
Jean
Jean
mange?
eat.3
‘Why is Jean eating?’
b.
*Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
pourquoi?
why
‘Jean is eating why?’
(49)
a.
Jean
Jean
mange
eats.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas
not
pourquoi
why
il
he
mange.
eat.3
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know why.’
b.
Jean
Jean
mange
eats.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas
not
pourquoi.
why
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know why.’
A bigger concern with a non-constituent approach to ellipsis, however, involves embedded questions. As previously discussed, wh-in situ is not possible with embedded predicates, but sluicing is crucially acceptable in these contexts (see 50).
(50)
A:
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose.
thing
‘Jean is eating something.’
B:
Je
I
sais/
know.1
me
self
demande
ask.1
quoi.
what
Lit. ‘I know/wonder what.’
B’:
*Je
I
sais/
know.1
me
self
demande
ask.1
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quoi.
what
Lit. ‘I know/wonder Jean is eating what.’
There is an underlying assumption that what is deleted must be grammatical in non-elliptical contexts (e.g. must be able to surface overtly)— hence the puzzle of how
An objection to a movement-based approach might arise from the existence of multiple-wh-questions and sluices. Assuming that both wh-words move is problematic in that French is not a language that allows for multiple wh-words to be fronted in non-elided contexts. Nevertheless, it has been well-documented in the literature that these kinds of sluices are attested in languages that do not tolerate multiple wh-movement (see e.g.
(51) | (?)Everyone read something, but I do not know who what. |
(52)
(?)Jean
Jean
a
has
donné
given.
quelque
some
chose
thing
à
to
quelqu’un,
someone
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
quoi
what
à
to
qui.
whom
‘Jean gave something to someone, but I do not know what to whom.’
(53)
*Tout
all
le
the
monde
world
lit
read.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
qui
who
quoi.
what
‘Everyone read something, but I do not know who what.’
(54)
(?)Quoi
what
à
to
qui?
whom
/
/
*Qui
who
quoi?
what
‘What to who(m)? / Who what?’
For the present purposes, the more marginal acceptability of these sluices would actually seem to support a movement-based account of sluicing, given that the non-elided counterparts are fully grammatical (55–56); if the wh-word is able to remain in situ, then it is unclear why these sluices should be degraded at all.
(55)
…je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
ce
this
que
that
Jean
Jean
a
has
donné
given.
à
to
qui.
whom
‘…I do not know what Jean gave to who(m).’
(56)
…je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
qui
who
lit
read.3
quoi.
what
‘…I do not know who read what.’
Given that the English data show that multiple sluices are possible in languages without wh-in situ, this is reason to be cautious. Either these are not derived via movement in English or French, or these are derived differently in each language— but if it is this latter option, then examples like (52) are not all that informative, making them an unreliable diagnostic.
While I argue that clefting is ruled out, and a non-constituent is problematic for French, it is still an open question as to how
While sluicing has received a lot of attention in the literature, French has not been the focus of this research, and surprisingly little has been written about
(i) The form of the wh-word found in sluicing corresponds to the “in situ” variant.
(ii) Sluicing is possible even when wh-in situ is not allowed.
She claims that
Ott & Therrien (
(57)
Jean
Jean
a
has
acheté
bought
un
a
cadeau,
gift
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know
pas
not
qui
who
pour.
for
‘Jean bought a gift, but I don’t know who (he bought a gift) for.’
Unlike
(58) | A: | Marie | a | reçu | des | fleurs. | B: | *Quel | prétendant | de? |
Mary | has | received | some | flowers | which | suitor | from | |||
A: | ‘Mary received some flowers.’ | B: | ‘From which suitor?’ |
(59)
Quel
which
prétendant
suitor
est-ce
is-it
qu’elle
that-she
a
has
reçu
received
des
some
fleurs
flowers
de?
from
‘Which suitor did she receive flowers from?’
(60)
De
from
quel
which
prétendant?
suitor
‘From which suitor?’
But putting aside the swiping data, particularly because there is no parallel in European French, (ii) it is simply not the case that
(61)
a.
Tu
you
manges
eat.2
quoi?
what
[
‘What are you eating?’
b.
*Quoi
what
tu
you
manges?
eat.2
‘What are you eating?’
(62)
a.
Tu
you
joues
play.2
de
of
quoi?
what
[
‘What are you playing?’
b.
De
of
quoi
what
tu
you
joues?
play.2
‘What are you playing?’
If
I start by adopting the well-known distinction between strong and weak forms in French (see Section 3). The form of the wh-word is sensitive to whether or not there is a verbal host, and whether or not this verb and the wh-word are in a local relationship—specifically, if the V is in C and the wh-word has moved into CP (as in matrix wh-questions, see (63)).
(63) |
Additionally, I am following a late insertion approach in assuming that the wh-word is initially represented in the narrow syntax as an abstract wh-feature bundle (with minimally a +wh and –human feature). Specifically, I assume the framework of Distributed Morphology, in which the morphological form of a feature(s) is determined via Vocabulary Insertion (VI) rules; these rules are sensitive to the environment in which the feature(s) in question is found. I argue that the Vocabulary Insertion (VI) rules that determine the form of the wh-word in French are sensitive to the relation between the wh-feature bundle, the verb, and C. I also follow Matushansky (
(64) | |
(from |
I argue that in matrix questions, when the wh-feature bundle moves to the specifier of CP and the verb moves to C, m-merger is able to apply (causing the wh to adjoin to the complex C head). I assume the structure below, based on Matushansky (
(65) | a. | b. | ||
(before m-merger) | (after m-merger) |
In this case, I propose that the VI rule in (66) applies. This rule states that the wh-feature bundle is realized as the wh-clitic when there is a local verbal host.
(66) | [+wh, –human] ⇔ |
This rule is exemplified in (67); this matrix question is derived by first moving the verb and wh-feature bundle to CP (step (a)), followed by merging the wh-clitic with the verbal host (step (b)). This is possible in this example because the wh-feature bundle is structurally adjacent to the C+V head; in other words, it is not part of a larger phrase that would exclude m-merger. At this point, the VI rule dictates that the wh-feature bundle is to be spelled out as
(67) | a. | after movement |
b. | after m-merger | |
c. | after VI rule has been applied/spell out | |
Consistent with the idea that the m-merger has applied in these contexts is the observation that material may not intervene between the wh-clitic and the verb, as illustrated in (68–69).
(68)
a.
*Que,
what
à
at
ton
your
avis,
opinion
doit-il
must.3
faire?
do.
‘What, in your opinion, must he do?’
b.
Que
what
doit-il
must.3
faire,
do.
à
at
ton
your
avis?
opinion
‘What must he do, in your opinion?’
(69)
a.
*Que,
what
en
in
se
self
préparant
preparing
à
to
l’examen,
the-exam
doit-il
must.3
faire?
do.
‘What, in preparing for the exam, must he do?’
b.
Que
what
doit-il
must.3
faire
do.
en
in
se
préparant
preparing
à
to
l’examen?
the-exam
‘What must he do in preparing for the exam?’
If the wh-feature bundle moves as part of a larger phrase (such as a PP), however, then it is a non-maximal projection, and m-merger is not able to apply. This results in the strong version of the wh-word surfacing, as indicated in the VI rule in (70). In other words, that it is not enough for there to be a complex C+V head, but that the wh-feature bundle must be in a local relationship with this complex head; that is, linear adjacency to the verb is not sufficient, otherwise it would be predicted that anytime the wh-word is simply next to the verb
(70) | [+wh, –human] ⇔ |
(71) |
In embedded questions, an additional rule must apply, as V-to-C movement is not possible, and the wh-bundle is not able to remain in situ (as embedded clauses are the one context in which wh-in situ is not grammatical in French). In these environments,
(72) | [+wh, –human] ⇔ |
(73) |
These VI rules provide a straightforward explanation for how full (non-elided) wh-questions in French behave. In sum, the wh-clitic will only surface if there has been m-merger with a complex C+V head. In all other cases, m-merger either cannot apply (in turn blocking the VI rule in 66), or there is no requisite verbal host.
Turning now to sluicing, only the strong form surfaces (74), whereas in the non-elided variant only
(74)
a.
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
quoi/*que/*ce que.
what
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know what.’
b.
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
ce
this
que
that
Jean
Jean
mange.
eat.3
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know what Jean is eating.’
The form of the wh-word in the non-elided variant is not surprising, as the wh-bundle is moving within the embedded clause; there is no verb movement from T to C, and thus no verbal host and no complex C+V head. The VI rule in (66) cannot apply, but there is still a local relation between the wh-bundle and C, triggering (72).
In the sluiced variant, the fact that
For every morphological operation MO that affects the domain of X, where X contains the target of MO, MO cannot apply in X if X is subject to ellipsis.
As Saab & Lipták explain, “The theoretical consequence of such an empirical observation is that ellipsis should apply
Taking together the claim that the complement of a moved element is able to be elided (
(75)
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas…
not
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know…’
(a)
(b)
In other words, the form of the wh-word in French is predictable and depends on the environment (see the VI rules repeated below in (76)). This analysis explains why
(76) | Vocabulary Insertion Rules: | |
a. | [+wh, –human] ⇔ |
|
b. | [+wh, –human] ⇔ |
|
c. | [+wh, –human] ⇔ ó |
(77)
Vocabulary Insertion Before Ellipsis (= ungrammatical result)
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose…
thing
‘Jean is eating something…’
a.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas [CP [C
not
[Jean
Jean
mange [+wh]]]].
eat.3
b.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas [CP [+wh] [C
not
[Jean
Jean
mange <wh>]]].movement
eat.3
c.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas [CP
not
ce que [C
what
[Jean
Jean
mange <wh>]]]. rule (76c)
eat.3
d.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas [CP
not
ce que
what
[C [Jean
Jean
mange <wh>]].ellipsis
eat.3
e.
*…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas
not
ce que.
what
‘…but I do not know what.’
(78)
Ellipsis Before Vocabulary Insertion (= grammatical result)
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose…
thing
‘Jean is eating something…’
a.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas [CP [C
not
[Jean mange [+wh]]].
Jean
mange [+wh]]].
eat.3
b.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas [CP [+wh] [C
not
[Jean mange <wh>]].
Jean eat.3
movement
c.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas [CP [+wh]
not
[C [Jean
Jean
mange <wh>]].
eat.3
ellipsis
d.
…mais
but
je
I
sais
know.1
pas
not
quoi.
what
rule (76b)
‘…but I do not know what.’
Returning to infinitives, which are compatible with either wh-form, the optionality may at first seem at odds with these rules, but I argue that the location of the wh-feature bundle is critical. Recall that with finite wh-questions, the wh-feature bundle may move (for fronted wh-questions) or remain in situ (79). With infinitival questions, the wh-feature bundle seemingly must move, as it is not possible to have the wh-word in a post-verbal position—regardless of its form (80).
(79)
a.
Que
what
fais-tu?
do.2
‘What are you doing?’
b.
Tu
you
fais
do.2
quoi?
what
‘What are you doing?’
(80)
a.
Que/quoi
what
faire?
do.
‘What do do?’
b.
Faire
do.
que/quoi?
what
Lit. ‘To do what?’
Following Déprez (
(81)
Déprez (
a.
Où
where
être
be.
invité,
invited
où
where
invité?
invited
‘Where to be invited, where not to be invited?’
b.
*Où
where
être
be.
invité,
invited
où
where
not
invité ?
invited
(82)
Déprez (
a.
Ne
pas
not
manger
eat.
de
of
sucre.
sugar
‘Do not eat sugar.’
b.
*Ne
manger
eat.
pas
not
de
of
sucre.
sugar
‘Do not eat sugar.’
Pollock (
(83)
a.
Que/quoi
what
faire
do.
aujourd’hui
today
à
at
Paris?
Paris
‘What to do today in Paris?’
b.
Comment
how
préparer
prepare.
efficacement
effectively
un
a
marathon?
marathon
‘How to effectively prepare for a marathon?’
Thus, the infinitive, unlike the finite verb, does not move to C. Given that the wh-feature bundle always seems to move in non-finite clauses, I argue that it may also “short move” to InfinP, such that it is adjacent to the verb, but not higher. When this happens, the wh-feature bundle would be realized as
(84) |
When the wh-feature bundle moves to CP, however, the wh-feature bundle would be too far away from the verb, m-merger would not be able to apply, and the elsewhere form would be triggered.
(85) |
It remains an open question as to why the wh-word cannot remain in its actual base position, unlike what is seen with finite wh-questions. However, this account would mean that the “optionality” in forms for non-finite questions is really optionality in terms of movement, which is what is already attested in the grammar in terms of the
Support for this analysis comes from cases where the optionality between
(86)
a.
De
of
quoi
what
parler
talk.
avec
with
une
a
fille?
girl
‘What to talk about with a girl?’
b.
De
of
quoi
what
on
one
parle
talk.3
avec
with
une
a
fille?
girl
‘What does one talk about with a girl?’
c.
*De
of
que
what
parler
talk.
avec
with
une
a
fille?
girl
‘What to talk about with a girl?’
d.
*De
of
qu’on
what-one
parle
talk.3
avec
with
une
a
fille?
girl
‘What does one talk about with a girl?’
In addition, this optionality between
(87)
example from Google:
Quoi
what
ne
pas
not
faire
do.
en
in
déco?
decoration
‘What not to do when decorating?’
(88)
a.
Que
what
faire?
do.
‘What to do?’
b.
?/* Que
what
ne
pas
not
faire?
do.
‘What not to do?’
This would suggest that negation blocks
(89)
Que
what
(ne
(
pas)
not)
faire
do.
pour
for
protéger
protect.
la
the
nature?
nature
‘What (not) to do to protect nature?’
(90)
Que
what
faire […]
do.
et
and
quoi
what
ne
pas
not
faire
do.
pour
for
protéger
protect.
la
the
nature?
nature
‘What to do to protect nature and what not to do to protect nature ?’
Lastly, while the focus here has been on
(91)
a.
Où
where
vas-tu?
go.2
‘Where are you going?’
b.
Où
where
est-ce que
tu
you
vas?
go.2
‘Where are you going?’
(92)
a.
Que
what
fais-tu?
do.2
‘What are you doing?’
b.
Qu’est-ce que
what-
tu
you
fais?
do.2
‘What are you doing?’
This analysis provides a systematic way to account for the distribution of
When
(93)
A:
Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose.
thing
‘Jean is eating something.’
B:
Que
what
diable?!
devil
‘What the hell?!’
A:
#Un
a
sandwich.
sandwich
‘A sandwich.’
(94)
A:
Que
what
diable
devil
mange-t-il?
eat.3
‘What the hell is he eating?’
B:
Un
a
sandwich.
sandwich
‘A sandwich.’
Relatedly, fragment questions with
(95)
A:
J’ai
I-have.1
vu
seen.
quelqu’un
someone
ce
this
matin.
morning
‘I saw someone this moring.’
B:
Que
what
diable?!
devil
(À
(at
cette
this
heure!)
hour)
‘What the hell?! (At this hour!)’
B’:
#Que
what
diable
devil
as-tu
have-you
vu?!
seen.
‘What the hell did you see?!’
For these reasons,
Turning, then, to cases where
(96)
a.
Que
what
diable
devil
a-t-il
have.3
dit?
said
‘What the hell did he say?’
b.
*Que
what
diable
devil
il
he
a
have.3
dit?
said
Lit. ‘What the hell he said?’
Moreover, we also find
(97)
À
to
quoi
what
diable
devil
pensez-vous?
think.2
‘What the hell are you thinking?’
In other words, we observe the same distribution with
(98)
*Jean
Jean
mange
eat.3
quelque
some
chose,
thing
mais
but
je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
que
what
diable.
devil
‘Jean is eating something, but I do not know what the hell.’
The distribution of
(99)
a.
Qui
who
ou
or
quoi
what
est
be.3
à
at
la
the
porte?
door
‘Who or what is at the door?’
b.
*Qui
who
ou
or
qu’est
what-be.3
à
at
la
the
porte?
door
‘Who or what is at the door?’
In non-finite questions with coordinated subjects, however, both
(100)
a.
[Où
where
et
and
quoi]
what
manger
eat.
à
at
Lille?
Lille
‘Where and what to eat in Lille?’
b.
[Où
where
manger (à Lille)]
eat.
et
and
que
what
manger
eat.
à
at
Lille?
Lille
‘Where and what to eat at Lille?’
Van Craenenbroeck & Temmerman (
(101) | a. | D ⇔ ce/V [CP __ |
b. | D ⇔ 0 /[CP ___ |
|
c. | D ⇔ -oi / elsewhere |
As the rules are written, the first rules state that
(102)
Je
I
ne
sais
know.1
pas
not
ce
this
que
that
tu
you
fais.
do.2
‘I do not know what you are doing.’
Additionally, because neither verb movement or the status of
Lastly, there are also certain theoretical concerns. Their approach assumes the environment before and after the D-head matters for deriving the form
While the proposed analysis has been based on French, there are crucial implications that also extend beyond this language. This analysis relies on the assumption that C is deleted along with TP to explain why the form of the wh-word differs in the elided and non-elided variants. Although this is bolstered by the Sluicing-COMP generalization, we might also ask if there are other languages that display similar asymmetries that seem tied to C— and indeed there appears to be such cross-linguistic support. An example comes from Indonesian. In this language, there is a question marker
(103)
Siapa(kah)
who(-QUES)
yang
COMP
akan
FUT
diundang
PASS-invite
Pak
Mr.
Ali?
Ali
‘Who will be invited by Pak Ali?’
(104)
Saya
1
dengar
hear
Pak
Mr.
Ali
Ali
mengundang
meng-invite
seseorang
someone
ke
to
pestanya,
party-3
tapi
but
(saya)
(1
tidak
tahu
know
siapa(*kah)
who(*QUES)
‘I heard Pak Ali invited someone to the party, but (I) don’t know who(*kah)’
In addition, this analysis also builds on previous assumptions in the literature that strong and weak/clitic forms are allomorphs conditioned by the environment, and that sluicing may delete the environment that would normally trigger a particular VI rule. If this claim is correct, we would expect that other languages with both strong and weak/clitic variants of wh-words would likewise display similar asymmetries with sluicing. This also seems to have some support, this time from the Italian dialect of Cavergno. In most varieties of Italian, wh-questions are formed via overt wh-movement. Cavergno, however, is more like French in allowing both fronted and in situ questions (although, unlike French, wh-in situ questions seem to signal surprise). Donzelli (
(105)
a.
Cosa/*cu/*cuz?
what
‘What?’
b.
Quoi/*que/*ce que?
what
‘What?’
(106)
a.
Cu c u fa?
‘What do you do?’
b.
(Je
I
sais)
know.1
ce que
what
tu
you
fais.
do.2
‘I know what you do.’
(107)
Cuz è-u c u fa?
‘What is it that you do?’
(108)
A i ét mangèu cus è-u!?
‘What did you eat?’
The distribution of these wh-forms in Cavergno is not completely analogous to French, as the licensing conditions are clearly different—but there are nevertheless important similarities:
(i) Only one form (
(ii) One form (
(iii) One form (
All of this supports the idea that similar Vocabulary Insertion rules determine the distribution of the form of the wh-word in Cavergno Italian.
This paper began with a puzzle concerning sluicing in French, in which the form of the wh-remnant not only suggests that the wh-word remains in situ, but also that the form in the non-elided variant and the sluice differ. In attempting to account for this puzzle, I have considered the wh-questions and these forms more generally, arguing that clues for how sluicing behaves are found in the grammar, beyond elliptical contexts. Here I have argued that French sluices are derived via movement, in spite of any temptation to analyze them otherwise.
I claim that the distribution of
Throughout this paper I have argued that a movement-based account for these sluices is the most appropriate, as opposed to other strategies proposed in the literature, such as clefting and non-constituent ellipsis. While clefting may indeed be an option for sluicing with other wh-words, and while non-constituent ellipsis may be a strategy for other languages (e.g. German), these are not viable options for (European) French. By assuming VI rules that operate across the language and do not require any additional stipulations or mechanisms for sluicing, this proposal is able to provide a uniform analysis of the data, including the “problematic” cases where sluicing is possible when wh-in situ is not.
Lastly, this analysis additionally makes important cross-linguistic predictions as far as what may be attested in other languages with strong and clitic/weak wh-forms. If the inability of
However see Vicente (
Only the gloss is provided.
There are apparently exceptions to this—that is, there are MPs that may attach to wh-phrases, as acknowledged by Ott & Struckmeier (
French questions may also be formed with
At least, both options are attested in different varieties of French. The variant
An alternative would be to analyze
(i) a. Qui who que that tu you as have.2 vu? seen ‘Who did you see ?’
b. Je I me self demande ask.1 qui who (que) (that) tu you as have.2 vu. seen ‘I wonder who you saw.’
(ii) *Que what que that tu you as have.2 vu? seen ‘What did you see?’
Ultimately, either analysis will work for the purposes here.
This is OK for some younger speakers, but it does not seem to be that productive. It is a kind of fixed expression.
A reviewer notes that fronted multiple wh-questions receive pair-list readings, whereas the corresponding in situ questions receive either single-pair or pair-list readings. This is subtle, and it is not clear that this is always the case—rather it seems to depend on the referent of the wh-word. In (i), the correlate contains
(i) A: Jean Jean a has donné given. quelque some chose thing à to quelqu’un. someone B: Qu’a-t-il what-has-he donné given. à to qui? whom ‘Jean gave something to someone.’ ‘What did he give to who(m)?’
A: Il he a has donné given. un a livre book à to Marie. Marie [single pair] ‘He gave a book to Marie.’
A’: #(Il he a has donné) given. un a livre book à to Marie, Marie un a chapeau hat à to Jules, Jules et and un a jeu game à to Marc. Marc [pair-list] ‘He gave a book to Marie, a hat to Jules, and a game to Marc.’
The same effect of context and the correlate is observed with sluicing, though the degraded nature of these sluices makes comparing the readings for these sluices difficult. Depending on the correlate, only a pair-list response or a single-pair reading is felicitous. Importantly, (ii) has the same interpretation as (i). These readings then seem not to be derived from sluicing per se, but from the larger semantic properties of the matrix clause.
(ii)
A:
Jean
a
donné
quelque
chose
à
quelqu’un.
B :
Quoi
à
qui ?
Jean
has
given.
some
thing
to
someone
what
to
whom
‘A:
Jean gave something to everyone.
B:
What to whom?’
See also Kotek & Barros (
In these trees, WH is short for the entire wh-feature bundle. I assume that movement is to check a wh-feature.
Some French speakers report that they can also use
The more classic approaches to ellipsis assume that deletion happens at PF. Elmo assumes that ellipsis could happen either at PF, before VI rules are applied, or in the narrow syntax. This latter assumption may be seen as a somewhat more “controversial” claim. What is particularly novel about this approach by Saab & Lipták—and others like it— is the timing aspect to it, and the idea that ellipsis bleeds other processes. In other words, what is crucial for my analysis is that ellipsis must happen at some point before the VI rules are applied.
Glosses for Cavergno not provided in the original text for examples (105–108).
I would like to thank Troy Messick and Viviane Déprez in particular, for all of their suggestions, guidance, and encouragement throughout this process. I would also like to thank Yimei Xiang, Jill Harper, Thomas Moreel, and helpful audiences at PLC43 and ConSOLE 2020, as well as all of the reviewers for their incredibly helpful and constructive feedback. Any errors are mine alone.
The author has no competing interests to declare.