Abstract
This article revisits the long-standing issue of the alternation between wh-in-situ and wh-ex-situ questions in French in the light of diglossia and cross-linguistic data. A careful preliminary examination of the numerous wh-structures in Metropolitan French leads us to focus on Colloquial French, which undoubtedly displays both wh-in-situ and wh-ex-situ questions. Within this dataset, wh-ex-situ questions without the est-ce que ‘is it that’ marker are more permissive than in-situ regarding weak-islandhood and superiority. In a Relativized Minimality framework, we suggest that wh-ex-situ items bear an additional feature, which permits them to bypass these constraints. Colloquial French is thus a wh-in-situ language that allows for wh-ex-situ under specific conditions, like other wh-in-situ languages. Hence we argue against free variation and claim that wh-fronting is not driven by a wh-feature, but by another feature. Exploring the contexts where wh-ex-situ is licensed, we highlight a type of non-exhaustive contrast specific to questions, namely Exclusivity, and provide a formalization. The article therefore also contributes to the larger debate on information structure in questions.
Highlights
The present article discusses the common idea that wh-ex-situ is the normal/default way to form a wh-question in Colloquial Metropolitan French and argues that whex-situ is more marked than wh-in-situ
Colloquial French is deemed to follow the same pattern as English, and wh-in-situ questions are seen as marked, which entails that they have received most of the attention
The other combinations, which are quite rare in adult, oral corpora, are left for further investigation.9. This said, the article will argue against optionality between wh-ex-situ and in-situ questions, and will claim that French is a wh-in-situ language that sometimes allows for wh-ex-situ, under specific conditions, much like other wh-in-situ languages
Summary
The present article discusses the common idea that wh-ex-situ is the normal/default way to form a wh-question in Colloquial Metropolitan French and argues that whex-situ is more marked than wh-in-situ. In tackling this question, we shall. In this binary perspective, Colloquial French is deemed to follow the same pattern as English, and wh-in-situ questions are seen as marked, which entails that they have received most of the attention.. French allows variation in its wh-ex-situ questions with the possible, additional insertion of est-ce que ‘is it that’ In this contribution, in order to work from minimal pairs, we shall only consider the ex-situ qu’est-ce que ‘what is it that’ in contrast with the insitu quoi ‘what’. The other combinations (e.g., où est-ce que ‘where is it that’), which are quite rare in adult, oral corpora, are left for further investigation.9 This said, the article will argue against optionality between wh-ex-situ and in-situ questions, and will claim that French is a wh-in-situ language that sometimes allows for wh-ex-situ, under specific conditions, much like other wh-in-situ languages.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
