The mapping of form and interpretation: the case of optional wh-movement in French

French questions come into two brands: a movement version and an in-situ alternative. In this context, the present paper argues for a flexible one-to-one mapping between form and interpretation: fronting of the nominal typically correlates with one reading, while the in-situ nominal may, but need not, correlate with another. The contention is nevertheless that there is no such thing as optional wh-movement in French: the EPP/D feature associated with [+wh] in C is always strong; what varies is the placement of the noun. In the dialect/register reviewed in this study, the default interpretation associated with the in-situ position is non-specific while the raising of the noun favours a specific interpretation. Moreover, it is argued that pragmatically, in this variant of French, in-situ fronted-questions are adequate in a prominent context whereas their wh-in-situ counterparts are only felicitous in a non-prominent context. One assumption on which the proposal is based is that single wh-constructions in French are instances of split-DP constructions: a bare operator is separated from its associated semantic nominal restriction in the course of the derivation. Finally, it will be shown that the semantic and discourse properties of in-situ/stranded nominals in the variety of the language examined in this paper follow from the fact they are semantically incorporated. They denote, not an argument, but a property, crucially without scope of their own. Coupled with the assumption that French wh in-situ constructions are split-constructions, the fact that in-situ wh-nominals are semantically incorporated explains the intervention effects exhibited by such constructions. The existential quantifier is provided by the verb. Thus, the existential quantifier will necessarily take scope under all other scopal elements present in the sentence, including negation.