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 Merchant 2001), in which (1) is derived from (2).

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) (Barros et al. 2014), or that there is no movement at all (3b) (e.g. Abe 2015; Ott & Struckmeier 2018; Griffiths 2019), or that nothing has in fact been deleted (3c) (e.g. Chung et al. 1995; Ginzburg & Sag 2000; Culicover & Jackendoff 2005).

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 must move. In addition, the form of ‘what’ that surfaces in sluices (4b) is always the form found in wh-in situ questions (5b), which at least on the surface seems to suggest that the wh-word remains in situ in sluicing contexts. Complicating this puzzle, however, is the fact that the form found in non-elliptical contexts also differs (4a).

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 (2019) has suggested that quoi-sluices support theories in which there is no structure at the ellipsis site (see 3c), given the impossibility of (bare) quoi in a fronted position. Ott & Therrien (2020) have recently suggested that (3b) may be more applicable. As it stands, this puzzle highlights the fact that the three forms in (4–5) are not interchangeable, but the exact relation between them—and why only quoi is found in sluicing—remains unclear.

The focus of this research is to provide an analysis for sluicing in French, with attention on quoi-sluices in particular. In doing so, I consider properties of the grammar that go beyond sluicing, in order to provide a unified analysis. To preview my analysis, I will claim that the distribution of que and quoi in French is predictable, and it is this predictability that offers insight into sluicing. I adopt a late insertion approach in Distributed Morphology, assuming the wh-phrase is initially represented in the morphosyntax as a wh-feature bundle. I argue that this feature bundle is sensitive to C. This sensitivity is reflected in the Vocabulary Insertion (VI) rules proposed in this paper. I will motivate and formalize three VI rules: if the wh-feature bundle is local to a complex C+V head, que surfaces, if it is local to a finite C head, ce que surfaces, and in all other contexts, quoi is found. Following Thoms (2010), sluicing targets not only TP, but C as well—given this, I argue that C is deleted. Building on this, I illustrate that sluicing destroys the context needed to trigger the form que. In this way, this paper proposes a cogent analysis not only for sluicing in French, but for the distribution of these wh-phrases in this language more generally.

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 quoi-sluices provide in particular. I offer a novel analysis in Section 4. I will then conclude with discussion and cross-linguistic implications that extend beyond French.

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.

However, this is not the case for what-questions. In matrix wh-questions, the wh-ex-situ form is que and the wh-in situ form is quoi (see 23).4

The former is traditionally analyzed as a wh-clitic, and the latter as the strong form (see Bouchard & Hirschbüler 1986; Poletto & Pollock 2004; see also Cardinaletti & Starke 1994 for discussion of weak/clitic and strong forms in Romance languages). This distinction is based on several asymmetries between these two forms. For example, the wh-clitic is only found in fronted position in the matrix clause, where it has moved such that it is left-adjacent to a verbal host. French exhibits verb movement in matrix clauses, where V moves to T and, in wh-questions, then moves to C. This movement is in fact required with que (as exemplified above). This results in subject-verb inversion. Although subject-verb inversion is the prescribed rule for most fronted wh-questions in French, it is really only with que that inversion seems to be absolutely required by native speakers—with other wh-words, lack of inversion is attested and is much more acceptable. Regardless, the crucial fact here is that whereas inversion is required for que, it is not for other wh-words (24b). This suggests that que may well differ from other wh-words in French in behaving like a wh-clitic (see also discussion in Munaro & Pollock 2008), necessitating a verbal host.

A potential objection to que being a clitic comes from aggressively non-d-linked expressions, as in (25), where the wh-clitic is not adjacent to the verb:

However, in this case, que diable is an expression, where diable may be acting as a head modifier (as opposed to a phrasal modifier). This would mean that que diable is a simplex head that is still adjacent to the verbal host. It may also be the case that this expression is becoming a quasi-frozen form—it is arguably not completely frozen yet as diable can combine with other wh-words (even if such usage is seemingly rare). In either case, the entire expression functions as the wh-element (see den Dikken & Giannakidou 2002 for a similar argument for ‘the hell’ expressions in English), in which case diable does not truly intervene between the wh-word and the verb (but see fn. 27 in Munaro & Pollock (2008) for an alternative analysis). I will return to this issue in Section 5.

While quoi is the only form that surfaces in wh-in situ questions— potentially giving the impression that it is only an “in situ form” (Dagnac 2019; Ott & Therrien 2020)— its distribution is not as constrained as that of the clitic form, and it is certainly not “rigidly immobile” like German MPs. While quoi alone cannot surface in the matrix position of a finite question (see 23b), it obligatorily surfaces it is part of a larger phrase, such as inside a pp (26–27), or with a phrasal modifier, e.g. else-modification (28), and these phrases with quoi may in fact move.

This is also the only form that surfaces in coordinated questions (29–30), potentially as part of, or forming, Coordinated Phrase (ConjP) viz. Munn (1987; 2000).

While que and quoi are almost always found in complementary distribution, there is an exception to this pattern. Infinitival questions allow for que or quoi, an optionality that does not exist elsewhere; both options in (31) are grammatical.5

Lastly, returning to the third form, ce que, this variant only surfaces in contexts in which there is no subject-verb movement, but where there is still a verbal host. This is exactly what is found in embedded clauses in French, where the verb does not move to C. Embedded questions are in fact the only environment in which wh-in situ is ungrammatical; all other syntactic contexts allow for both fronted and in situ wh-questions.

The inclusion of ce with que gives the appearance of clitic doubling, which is how Sportiche (2008) analyzes this form.6 I will adopt his assumption that ce que is a “strengthened” form of the wh-word that surfaces here.

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 quoi thus crucially suggests that it is able to move and does not have a fixed position, whereas que is dependent on the verb.

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 quoi-sluices in particular. Dagnac (2019) provides an overview of various elliptical constructions, but only briefly mentions quoi-sluices; she acknowledges that they are problematic for standard theories of sluicing. She suggests that this construction supports a WYSIWYG/non-deletion approach, in which there is no structure after the wh-remnant. The reasons she gives are the following:

She claims that quoi may be base-generated, following Chung et al. (1995; 2011)— but perhaps as a feature-bundle— and that there is a null pronoun at the so-called ellipsis site; this pronoun is then interpreted at LF. She suggests, furthermore, that the form of the wh-word is determined at PF, as argued for by Sportiche (2008). Dagnac (2019) does not provide a solution for how or why exactly quoi is triggered, but she does state that it is unsurprising that que is not able to surface when there is no verbal host. While I agree that the availability of a verbal host is in fact crucial to determining the form of the wh-word, I diverge from Dagnac (2019) in assuming that these facts indicate a lack of structure.

Ott & Therrien (2020) have recently suggested that quoi-sluices involve non-constituent ellipsis, in part due to this same observation that it is the strong form quoi that surfaces in sluicing— but this is based on the idea that quoi is immobile. Part of their argument comes from the fact that quoi does not participate in swiping in Lafontaine French (LFF), a dialect of Ontario (Canadian) French. Swiping is a related construction in which a stranded preposition “swaps” positions with the wh-remnant. Note that this is not grammatical in European French.

Unlike qui as in example like (57), quoi does not ever invert with the preposition. While I do not contest their data, I argue that this is simply not the strongest evidence for non-constituent ellipsis, and that non-constituent ellipsis would still not explain the sluicing facts. This is for several reasons: (i) Ott & Therrien note that there are actually several wh-words that do not participate in swiping in LFF, and that acceptability in swiping in LFF cannot be reduced to simplex vs. complex wh-words, as suggested for swiping in other languages (Merchant 2002). This suggests that there may be several factors at play, given that there are wh-words that resist swiping (e.g. quel ‘which’) that are not restricted from moving in LFF (examples 58–60 from Ott & Therrien).

But putting aside the swiping data, particularly because there is no parallel in European French, (ii) it is simply not the case that quoi is “immobile” – as discussed at length in Section 3. As mentioned, although quoi is the form found in wh-in situ questions, it is also found in a fronted position in finite questions when inside larger phrases, such as in PPs and coordinated phrases, as well as in infinitival questions. Ott & Therrien call fronted questions with à quoi and de quoi (PPs) “exceptions” but there is no obvious reason why these should be considered as such. As I will argue in this section, the ability for quoi to surface in these constructions is in fact critical in capturing the more general pattern of when this form is able to surface.

If quoi were truly immobile, we would not expect for it to surface anywhere except its base in situ position, contra the data. Moreover, I argue that these previous analyses miss an important generalization about where quoi (and que) surface The general pattern that I have highlighted in Section 3 is that que is actually the more restricted form—it is only found when there is a C+V head, a verbal host. In all other environments, the wh-word is quoi. In this section I will argue that the form of the wh-word is misleading. In a preview of my analysis, I will argue that movement is not what is responsible for one form or the other per se. That is, movement or no movement, the strong form will be realized when there is no adjacent, structural relation to a C+V head. Previous analyses are sluicing-specific solutions, but do not connect to properties of French grammar as a whole. Here I argue for an analysis that is both (i) amenable to the MDA, while explaining how quoi-sluices with embedded questions are possible, and crucially (ii) able to capture the behavior of quoi in French more generally. I formulate an account that relies on Distributed Morphology, with context-sensitive Vocabulary Insertion (VI) rules.

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)).

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 (2006), in interpreting morphological merger (m-merger) as an operation that targets structurally adjacent heads, causing them to adjoin (as in (64) below). Matushansky (2006) crucially proposes that maximal, non-branching phrasal projections behave syntactically like heads as well. In other words, the specifier and head may merge if the phrase in this specifier position is (i) a maximal projection, and (ii) in a local configuration with the head. Otherwise m-merger is not able to apply.

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 (2006).9

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.

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 que (step (c)).

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).

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 que could surface.

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, ce que surfaces, as specified in (72).

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 ce que is possible.10

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 quoi surfaces suggests that there is no local relation with C. Although sluicing has traditionally been thought of as TP-deletion, it has long been noticed that material in C does not survive sluicing, which has given rise to the Sluicing-COMP generalization. Building on this, Thoms (2010) argues that sluicing targets the complement of the moved element, which would mean that C + TP is deleted. In other words, sluicing is a by-product of movement. Assuming that C is elided before the spell-out rules proposed here are applied, this would provide a natural explanation for why only quoi is possible in sluicing contexts: there is no C head.11 Here I follow the Ellipsis-Morphology Generalization (Elmo) as defined by Saab & Lipták (2016), which claims that ellipsis is able to block vocabulary insertion, and other morphological processes. Elmo is formulated as follows:

Ellipsis-Morphology (Elmo) Generalization (Saab & Lipták 2016: 77):

As Saab & Lipták explain, “The theoretical consequence of such an empirical observation is that ellipsis should apply before spell-out or at the spell-out point but before morphological operations. In [other] words […] phrasal ellipsis could be conceived as a part of the narrow syntax” (emphasis added). In the case of French, the environment for both que and ce que to be inserted has been removed before the VI rules proposed here apply, causing only quoi to surface.

Taking together the claim that the complement of a moved element is able to be elided (Thoms 2010) and the Elmo, I argue that the wh-feature bundle first moves into its position in CP, at which point the complement of the moved wh-feature bundle is eligible for deletion. Merchant (2001) has traditionally proposed that movement precedes ellipsis (a); I assume this here as well, but additionally argue that both movement and ellipsis precede spell-out of the VI rules (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 quoi surfaces in wh-in situ questions, why que is restricted to matrix position, and why only quoi is possible with sluicing. Importantly, this analysis builds on previous theories that suggest timing matters, and that ellipsis may bleed, or otherwise interact with, morphological processes (Fuß 2008; Saab 2009; Schoorlemmer & Temmerman 2010; 2012; Stjepanović 2011; Temmerman 2012; Saab & Lipták 2016; Banerjee 2020; Sailor 2021; among others). If this were not the case, it would be harder to explain why the elided and non-elided variants (with ce que) could not be the same in French without making additional stipulations.

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).

Following Déprez (1989), Pollock (1989), and Kayne (1991), non-finite auxiliaries may optionally move to T (81), whereas lexical infinitives in (modern) French do not move into T, as evidenced by the fact that they stay below negation (82).

Pollock (1989) and Kayne (1991) note that lexical infinitives do not move to T, but that they may optionally “short move” to an intermediate InfinP position (using Kayne’s terminology). Evidence for this movement comes from the relative placement of adverbs, which follow the infinitive (83). Numerous examples like these are found on travel blogs.

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 que given the VI rule [+wh, –human] ⇔ que/ [___+V]. That is, the wh-feature bundle would still be able to merge with the verb. When this happens, the form of the infinitival wh-question would be que not quoi.

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.

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 grammaticality of both fronted and wh-in situ questions. Thus if we assume that the wh-feature bundle can either be structurally adjacent to the verb or not, then we get a unified pattern for both the finite and non-finite cases.

Support for this analysis comes from cases where the optionality between que and quoi disappears: (i) examples where the wh-word is part of a larger phrase, e.g. a PP and (ii) examples with negation. Starting with (i), we see that only quoi is able to surface (86a), which parallels the finite variants of these same questions (86b).

In addition, this optionality between que and quoi seems to erode when negation is thrown into the mix. When negation (pas) intervenes between the wh-word and the infinitive, quoi is the only grammatical option—or, at the very least, que is degraded.

This would suggest that negation blocks que from being triggered, as pas would intervene between the wh-feature bundle and the verb. While counter-examples exist (see 89, from Google) these are arguably rare, and seem to be non-standard. That is to say that, for example, (90) seems to really be two questions condensed into one—what to do and what not to do? If this is the case, then (89) may essentially be “shorthand” for (90).

Lastly, while the focus here has been on que (and other bare wh-words), French actually has several strategies for forming wh-questions. It is possible to use est-ce que in between the wh-word and the matrix subject (91b). This element has been interpreted as a complex complementizer (Rooryck 1994), and as such is typically analyzed as a whole—not decomposed. However, following a DM-style analysis here, I argue that while this is a C, it contains a verbal element, i.e. the inverted cleft. This is partly based on the fact that we have already seen that verbs invert in this position, and it seems non-coincidental that est-ce contains a recognizable form of the copula. In fact, est-ce que is argued to have originated in Old French as its own clause, and fossilized as a single element over time (see e.g., Dufter 2008). While I maintain the assumption that this is a complex C, I argue that this C is able to serve as a verbal host. Turning specifically to qu’est-ce que ‘what’ (92b), I claim that this form follows from the analysis proposed here as well, if we assume that the wh-feature bundle merges with this complex C. The same rules introduced above would apply, yielding que + est-ce que (92b).

This analysis provides a systematic way to account for the distribution of que and quoi more generally in French. Nonetheless, a possible objection to this analysis could be aggressively non-d-linked phrases (e.g. que diable), in which the rules as stated seem to predict that que should be impossible in this environment because it is not adjacent to the verb. First, I argue that there are essentially two variants of que diable – one that functions as a stand-alone, non-information-seeking exclamative, the other that is productive and found in information-seeking questions.

When que diable surfaces on its own, it is not clear that it is behaving as a question— rather, it seems to be behaving like an exclamative (see Pesetsky 1987). Pesetsky notes that such exclamatives express surprise and/or frustration. Along these lines, when these are used as matrix sluices, they do not seem to be information-seeking. It seems strange to respond to que diable?! with an actual answer, as in (93), whereas it is completely natural to provide one to a non-elided question with que diable (as in (94)); this holds true for English and for French.

Relatedly, fragment questions with what the hell (in English) and que diable (in French) always seem to be felicitous, unlike full wh-questions with these same expressions, which may become ungrammatical—or at least infelicitous—depending on the antecedent.

For these reasons, que diable in fragment questions seems to be somewhat of a frozen form.

Turning, then, to cases where que is found with diable in full wh-questions, we see that diable seems to intervene between the wh-word and the verbal host. As previously argued, these examples may be explained if que diable is acting as a simplex head, where diable is actually a head-modifier. The reasoning for this claim is based on the following facts. First, we see obligatory V-T-C movement, just as with bare que (96). This suggests that a verbal host is still needed.

Moreover, we also find quoi with diable, but only in environments where we would normally expect to find quoi – namely when the wh-feature bundle is part of a larger constituent (see 97, from Google).

In other words, we observe the same distribution with que and quoi as we do without diable, which seem to suggest it is acting as a single unit. In terms of sluicing, however, neither que diable nor quoi diable is a possible wh-remnant since there is a cross-linguistic ban on aggressively non-D-linked expressions in final position (see Merchant 2001; Sprouse 2006; den Dikken & Giannakidou 2002; among others).

The distribution of que and quoi in coordinated questions is perhaps more intriguing. There are different theories as to how to analyze coordinated questions. One approach is to consider the individual wh-phrases as being coordinated, forming a ConjP (as adopted here). Another approach is to assume that two CPs are being coordinated, and that there is ellipsis within the first conjunct (see Giannakidou & Merchant 1998; Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek 2013; among others). Given that in finite coordinated questions only quoi is possible, this seems to suggest that a verbal host is not local enough (or available) for que to surface.

In non-finite questions with coordinated subjects, however, both que and quoi are grammatical. Again, based on what is known about que in French more generally, the ability for it to surface here suggests that it must have a local relation with the verbal host at some point in the derivation. This seems to indicate that finite and non-finite coordinated wh-questions behave differently. It is possible that French has more than one strategy for coordination—which by itself is perhaps not that unusual (see Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek 2013)—although why this availability depends on finiteness is unclear. I put this issue aside for future research.

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 que and quoi (and ce que) is, in fact, predictable, and that these morphological forms are determined via the syntactic environment. Specifically, this analysis builds on the observation that que is dependent on a verbal host. Only when wh-word is structurally adjacent to (and thus able to merge with, following m-merger; Matushansky 2006) the verb does it emerge as que— in all other cases the strong form surfaces. If we assume that sluicing bleeds the environment needed for que to appear, as the complex verbal head C+V is deleted, this explains why quoi is the only possible form in this environment. In other words, in this analysis the wh-remnant always moves in quoi-sluices; its form is the result of the lack of C+V, and not the lack of either movement or structure (contra Dagnac 2019). The benefit of this analysis, then, is not only its ability to account for the sluicing puzzle, but its ability to be extended to other syntactic contexts in order to capture more general properties of the language. In this way, I am able to account for the distribution of quoi, and not only quoi-sluices.

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 que to appear in French sluices is tied to the fact that it needs a verbal host, then it is predicted that other languages that have wh-clitics may exhibit similar patterns with sluicing. Although there are not many languages that have both fronted and wh-in situ questions, and separate forms of the wh-word(s), a promising avenue of future research is exploring Italian dialects that exhibit similar asymmetries. Additional data, from more dialects, is needed to confirm a potential cross-linguistic pattern for sluicing in such languages. Crucially, the French data suggests that what is on the surface can be misleading; while finding quoi in sluicing contexts may superficially seem to favor a non-structural/non-movement-based approach, it is evident that taking this approach would not only fail to capture properties of French sluicing more generally, but would additionally neglect important connections between the wh-form and the syntactic context in which it is found.