In the Romance domain, French is unique in having homophonous interrogative, exclamative and relative constructions sharing the same Que+est+ce+que string. The main goal of this article is to shed light on this enigmatic sequence. It will do so by investigating the rarely studied syntax of que, combien and ce que exclamatives and relatives and will show that the sequence initial Que in their Que+est+ce+que counterparts is the covert duplicate of the subsequent exclamative and relative (ce+)que clauses. The article extends the main features of this analysis to all Qui, quand, où, …+est-ce que questions by showing that the ce que string following est in such questions is to be analysed, despite the spelling conventions of Modern French, as the complex complementiser of headless relatives. As the article proceeds, various questions concerning the syntax of similar clauses in other Romance languages are raised and the uniqueness of French is argued to be tied to the defective properties of est in these three constructions. Finally, its appendix extends and shows the fruitfulness of Kayne's ideas concerning the ce que complex determiner.
Appendix: On Ce/CE que
I have so far used brute force in my dealings with que and ce que. I would like to try to be a little less rough and more precise. In order to do that, let me first go back to assertion C in Section 4, repeated in A:
Bare que is the same entity in interrogative, relative and exclamative clauses.
I observed in note 13 that such a claim implied that que’s respective values and properties in these three constructions depend on the layers of the HLP – or Low Left Periphery – they move to or through and on their function in the structure where they are first merged. Let me now also endorse Kayne’s idea that there are no interrogative or relative pronouns: all of these so-called pronouns are Qu-determiners. This then also applies to que and to other Qu-elements such as qui, où, etc.
On that view, (bare) que’s (surface) properties will also depend on what happens to its (null) complement. Taking our clue from ordinary questions and headed relatives such as, say, [Quelhomme] as-tu vu? ‘what man have you seen?’ and [L’hommeque] j’ai vu ‘The man who I saw’, let us claim that relative que’s (null) complement must adjoin to (some projection to) its left, along the lines of Vergnaud (1974), while interrogative que’s complement typically remains to its right. Let us further exploit the main results of Poletto and Pollock (2020): There are three different Qu-positions in the clause architecture. (A) The LLP hosts a Focus slot for interrogative Qu-determiners. (B) The HLP hosts a slot for free relative Qu-determiners. (C) The HLP also hosts various (high) slots for special question Qu-determiners.
Granted all this, let me now make the following conjectures:
Relative que, interrogative que, exclamative queand complementiser que are always preceded by a demonstrative determiner: All these (bare) que’s are part of a complex Qu-determiner.
In such complex Qu-determiners, the demonstrative can be lexical or non-lexical: [ce que]/[CE que].
Conjecture B is a generalisation of Kayne’s (2011) claim, taken over in this article without discussion, that ce que in (178a),
is a complex relative Qu-determiner. The sheer existence of (178b) shows that there is also need for a complex complementiser in French.
To shed light on conjecture C, let us consider (179) versus (180):
Kayne (2011) relates (179) in French to (181b) in English
However that may be, the pre-ce que position of the antecedent in (179) results from its crossing over ce que from a position immediately to its right. In that sense, assuming ce in ce que to be related to that in English, there’s a possible linkage to (182):
Along the same lines, one can relate (180) and (183),
whether that which in English is a complex relative determiner or not. Because of the constraints responsible for this state of affairs, CE is obligatorily null when it is preceded by lexical material in headed relatives such as (179) and must lexicalise in headless relatives such as (180).
What was just said is enough to explain why (184a, b) surface as shown, but it is not enough to account for (184c):
Why couldn’t CE lexicalise, yielding the sharply ungrammatical (185)?
That would only be possible if CHOSE could cross over CE que. Under Poletto and Pollock’s (2020, section 7) analysis, that would only be possible if CE que could move to the Focus position of the LLP, which it can’t: *Il a fait (ce)que? (he’s done what?). This is because in fine sentences such as Il pense à quoi? (He’s thinking of what = what is he thinking of?) or il a vu laquelle (He saw which one = Which one did he see?), the clause is typed as a question by (string vacuous) remnant VP movement to the Ground slot of the LLP. In such cases, the HLP to which à quoi and laquelle move in sentences such as A quoi il pense? A quoi pense-t-il? (What is he thinking of?) Laquelle il a vue? Laquelle a-t-il vue? (Which one did he see?) hosts the relative-like structures of à quoi – CHOSE à quoi – or laquelle – CHOSE laquelle. Since no such ‘low’ interrogative typing is possible in the case of que, the slot to which CE que CHOSE moves in (185) via the computations yielding SCLI constructions must be Rizzi’s Interrogative Force, typing the sentence as a question, which precludes CHOSE from crossing over CE que. So only Que redoutes-tu? (What fear you? = What are you afraid of?), analysed as in (184c), can be derived.
This overall framework also tells us why the sentences in (186) are to be analysed as indicated:
cannot host the suitable relative layer. Consequently, CHOSE cannot cross over the CE que determiner and CE must remain non-lexical. In example (186b) on the contrary, the null complement of CE que has been extracted because the left periphery in which the complex determiner and its complement are standing is a relative layer (cf. Poletto and Pollock 2020, section 7 and passim).
Before commenting on (187), let us go back to questions such as (189) under the analysis suggested in Section 8.
Conjecture B says its input structure must be (189):
Relative où moves to the HLP yielding (191):
As seen earlier, interrogative où then ‘erases’ (voids) relative où upon identity:
At this point, lexicalisation of ce becomes necessary, for the same reason it is obligatory in (184–186b): it is preceded by a null entity to its immediate left. This yields (193) and finally (194) after interrogative où (together with its null complement PLACE, not shown here) has moved to the specifier of the copula ε.
Essentially the same analysis obtains for examples such as (195), already discussed in Section 8, to be analysed as in (196) (=,  and ):
As already noted, (195) only differ from the very colloquial (197) in having one extra step moving the Qu-determiners (and their null complements) to the specifier position of ε.
In (197) CE remains obligatorily null because it is preceded by a lexical antecedent, while it must lexicalise in (195).
At long last, let me now return to (187), repeated in (198):
This structure and a simple-minded extension of the analysis shown in (193) and (195) will no doubt have led the reader to wonder why (199) does not surface as the horrendously bad (200):
since interrogative qui (and its null complement) might be thought to move successive cyclically to the pre-CE position, thereby inducing its lexicalisation. My answer is that in (standard) French, the slot to/through which interrogative and relative QU-determiners move is not pre-CE but rather the XP position in (201):
If so, CE will remain silent, as it must, in all sentences such as (199) and in the embedded clauses of (171). The next claim will then be that movement to/through XP in (202),
is only available in those dialects and sociolects which productively use root questions such as (203),
which, as we claimed, underlie (root) Qu-est-ce que questions.
Given the framework developed in this appendix and assuming, as stated in B and C that exclamative que falls under our two conjectures – the null assumption – these structures should be modified as follows:
Speakers such as Martinon (see footnote 5) or Richard Faure, who find sentences such as (54) – repeated under (213) – fine in ‘elevated’ style,
and speakers who accept sentences such as (214) and (215),
can be described as allowing for structures such as (216) and (217):
In this perspective, the diachronic evolution alluded to in note 5 may be ascribed to the replacement of (216)–(217) by (2011)–(212), i.e. to the generalisation of ce que free relative-like structures for exclamatives which, given our generalisations in A and B in this Appendix, can in turn be related to bare que’s inability to head embedded questions in Modern French (see example (50) above Poletto and Pollock (2020) and Poletto & Pollock (2004, note 40) for a late example of archaic usage).
It seems plausible to argue further that the fact that sentences such as (217) are retained in ‘elevated’ style by speakers such as Richard Faure and the fact that (216) are acceptable in my French should be seen as a consequence of abundant exposure to similar sentences in classical literature and/or to the (normative) teaching of schools and lycées.
Ambar, Manuela & Rita Veloso. 1999. On the nature of Wh-phrases, word order and Wh-in-situ. In Romance languages and linguistic theory, vol. 221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & George M. Horn. 1976. Remarks on conditions on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 265–299. Search in Google Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna. 2019. Agreement with the post-verbal DP in Polish dual copula clauses. In Maria J. Arche, Antonia Fàbregas & Rafael Marin (eds.), The grammar of copulas across languages, 107–129. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. New York, Oxford: OUP. Search in Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis & Paul Hirschbühler. 1986. French Quoi and its clitic allomorph QUE. In Carol Neidle and Rafael A. Nuñez Cedenao (eds.), Studies in romance languages, 39–60. Dordrecht: Foris. Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar
Gibson, Hanna, Rozenn Guérois & Lutz Marten. 2019. Variation in Bantou copula constructions. In Maria J. Arche, Antonia Fàbregas & Rafael Marin (eds.), The grammar of copulas across languages, 213–242, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. New York, Oxford: OUP. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2004. Some preliminary comparative remarks on French and Italian definite articles. NYU. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2005. Movement and silence. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Why isn’t this a complementiser. NYU document. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2011. More on relative pronouns. Leiden hand-out. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2016. The Unicity of there and the definiteness effect. In E. Gonçalves (ed.), To appear in Existential constructions in focus: Editora da Universidade Federal da Bahia. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2019. Questions of syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. & Jean-Yves Pollock. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity and move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 595–621. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in romance and the theory of universal grammar, 107–162. New York & Oxford: OUP. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2011. Notes on French and English demonstratives. Manuscript NYU. Appears as chapter 8 of Kayne (2019). Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2012. Toward an analysis of French hyper-complex inversion. In Laura Brugé, Anna, Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicolas Munaro & Cecilia Poletto (eds.), Functional heads (The cartography of syntactic structures 7), 150–167. Oxford u.a.: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. & J-Y. Pollock. 2014. Locality and agreement in French hyper-complex inversion. In Enoch Oladé Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti & Ian Roberts (eds.), Locality (Oxford studies in comparative syntax), 32–57. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Le Bidois, Robert. 1952. L’inversion du sujet dans la prose contemporaine. Paris: Editions d’Artrey. Search in Google Scholar
Leu, Thomas. 2016. The architecture of determiners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Martinon, Ph. 1927. Comment on parle en français. Paris: Larousse. Search in Google Scholar
Milner, Jean-Claude. 1978. De la syntaxe à l’interprétation. Quantités, insultes, exclamations. Paris: Seuil. Search in Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola. 1999. Free relative as defective WH-elements, evidence from the North western Italian dialects. In Yves D’Hulst, Johan Rooryck & Jan Schroten (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic theory 1999; 2001. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Search in Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola. 2015. Verbless predicative structures across romance. Journal of Linguistics. Search in Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Hans-Georg Obenauer. 2002. On the semantic widening of underspecified wh-elements. In Manuel Leonetti, Olga Fernàndez Soriano & Victoria Escandell Vidal (eds.), Current issues in generative grammar, 165–194. Madrid: Universidad de Alcalà – Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia – Universidad Autònoma de Madrid. Search in Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Cecilia Poletto. 2008. Sentential particles and clausal typing in Venetan dialects. In Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspectives, 173–199. New York: Routledge. Search in Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Cecilia Poletto. 2020. Towards a typology of wh-doubling in Northern Italian dialects. unpublished manuscript: University of Venice and Padua. Search in Google Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2006. Qu’est-ce que (Que)-est-ce que”? In G. Cinque & R. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 542–606. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1976. Etude de Syntaxe interrogative du français. Niemeyer: Tübingen. Search in Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre. Effets d’intervention et mouvements des quantifieurs. France: Université de Paris VIII thèse de doctorat d’état. Search in Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg & Jean-Yves Pollock. 1983. Présentation. In Hans-Georg Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Français et grammaire universelle, 3–14. Paris: Larousse. Langue Française n 58. Search in Google Scholar
Palasis, Katerina, Richard Faure & Frédéric Lavigne. 2019. Explaining variation in wh-position in child French: A statistical analysis of new seminaturalistic data. Language Acquisition 26(2): 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2018.1513004. Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2004. On wh-clitics and wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Probus 16(2): 241–272. https://doi.org/10.1515/probus.2004.16.2.241. Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2009. Another look at wh-questions in Romance. In Danièle Torck & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2006, 199–258. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2016. Arguing for remnant movement in romance. In Günther Grewendorf (ed.), Remnant movement, 135–178. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Search in Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Jean-Yves Pollock. 2020. Remnant movement and smuggling in some romance interrogative clauses. in press. In Adriana Belletti & Chris Collins (eds.), Smugggling. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–425. Search in Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1997. Langage et cognition. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Search in Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 2006. Subject clitics, subject clitic inversion and complex inversion. In Martin Everaert & Henc C. van Riemsjik (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. IV, 601–659. Malden, Mass u.a.: Blackwell. Search in Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 1993. The syntax of the morphological defectivity of BE. HIL Manuscripts 3. 31–67. Search in Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 1994. The indefinite reading of WH. In Linguistics in the Netherland, January 1994. Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativised minimality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT press. Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliana Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. A handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Search in Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1982. Grammaire des insultes et autres études. Paris: Seuil. Search in Google Scholar
Szabolci, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102. Search in Google Scholar
Szabolci, Anaa. 1994. The noun phrase. In Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin Kiss (eds.), Syntax and semantics 27. The syntactic structure of Hungarian, 179–274. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Search in Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean Roger. 1974. French Relative Clauses. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Doctoral Dissertation. Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston