Cross-linguistic variation in
ordinary vs interrogative disjunctions
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine (mitcho), mitcho@mitcho.com
University of Helsinki / National University of Singapore
8th Bucharest Colloquium of Language Acquisition, Workshop on Logical Operators, November 20231

Introduction
 Disjunction in natural language has broadly two related but distinct uses. Consider (1):(1) The city says they have to cut down this tree.
(Maybe) The tree is too tall or sick.

declarative

b. Is the tree [too tall]F ↑ or [sick]F ↓ ?

alternative question (AltQ)a.

c.

Is the tree too tall or sick↑ ?

polar question (PolQ)

1. One use “flattens” these possibilities into a single disjunctive proposition, as in (1a). This can thenfeed polar question formation, as in (1c).
2. Another makes these possibilities salient in the discourse as a question as in (1b), keeping theindividual possibilities distinct.

11

10

11

10

11

10

01

00

01

00

01

00

(1a) declarative(1b) AltQ(1c) PolQ

In languages like English, a single disjunctor (or) appears in all of these uses. Prosody distinguishes
between (1b,c) in English; see e.g. Han and Romero 2004, Pruitt and Roelofsen 2013, Biezma and Rawlins
2015, Meertens 2019.
 Some languages lexically distinguish these uses of disjunction. Following Haspelmath (2007), I
call these forms “ordinary disjunction” (ODISJ) vs “interrogative disjunction” (IDISJ).
1

For comments and discussion that informed this work, I especially thank Virginia Dawson, Hadas Kotek, Hanna Parviainen,
Anne Nguyen, and Ruixue Wei, the audience at the 14th Tbilisi Symposium (TbiLLC), as well as audiences long long ago at
the European Association of Chinese Linguistics 7 and Chicago Linguistics Society 48. This work is supported by the HelsinkiCollegium for Advanced Studies.

1

(2)

‘Theysg drink coffee or tea’, three ways in

b. AltQ:

Finnish:a.

Juo-koteetä?

drinks-Q 3sg coffee IDISJ tea

Declarative:c.
Hän juohän kahvia vai

kahvia tai/*vai

PolQ:

teetä.

Juo-ko3sg drinks coffee ODISJ/*IDISJ tea

hän kahvia tai

teetä?

drinks-Q 3sg coffee ODISJ tea
Today: I investigate the ranges of use of ODISJ vs IDISJ in languages that exhibit this distinction, concentrating on Finnish, Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Tiwa (Tibeto-Burman; northeast India).
 Languages differ in the distinction that is lexicalized by ODISJ vs IDISJ. In particular:– In Mandarin and Vietnamese, there are certain contexts where the contrast between ODISJ andIDISJ are neutralized. But not in Finnish or Tiwa.
– I propose that the conventional link between IDISJ and alternative question formation is syntactic in Finnish and Tiwa but only semantic in Mandarin and Vietnamese.
– I discuss a (work in progress) approach to these facts.

1

The basic paradigm

We first confirm the signature of ordinary versus interrogative disjunction, introduced above, in our four
languages of focus:
ODISJ

IDISJ

Finnishtai

vai

Vainikka 1987; Kaiser 2003

Mandarinhuò(zhe)háishì

Lin 2008; Huang 2010; Erlewine 2014; Ito 2014...

Vietnamese

hoặc2

hay

Tiwa

ba / khí 3na

Dawson 20202Hoặc is Sino-Vietnamese and a cognate of Mandarin huò. Alves (2009) hypothesizes that hoặc came to replace the native
disjunctor âu là between the 17th and 20th century. (Phan (2013: 343–352) however suggests that such Sino-Vietnamese replacements most likely do not reflect entirely new borrowings from the 17th century onwards, but that such Sino-Vietnamese
forms were likely already in use.) I do not know of the range of use of âu là.
3
Tiwa also has another ordinary disjunction, khí, which necessarily takes wide scope, even above illocutionary force operators;
see Dawson 2020: 161.

2

(3) Disjunctive proposition declarative:‘L. will come tomorrow or the day after.’a.

Liisa tulee[huomenta tai/*vai

ylihuomenta].

FinnishLiisa comes tomorrow ODISJ/*IDISJ day.afterb. Lǐsì [míngtiān huòzhe/*háishì hòutiān] huì lái.
Lǐsì tomorrow ODISJ/*IDISJc.

Lan sẽ

đến

Mandarinday.after will comevào [ngày mai hoặc/*hay ngày kia].

Lan will arrive intomorrow ODISJ/*IDISJ day.after
ba/*nad. Lastoi [khónana

Vietnamese

sónena] phiw.

Tiwa

Lastoi tomorrow ODISJ/*IDISJ day.after come(Dawson, 2020: 87, p.c.)(4) Alternative question:‘Will L. come tomorrow or the day after?’ (AltQ)a.

Tulee-ko Liisa [huomenta *tai/vai

ylihuomenta]?

Finnishcomes-Q Liisa tomorrow *ODISJ/IDISJ day.afterb. Lǐsì [míngtiān *huòzhe/háishì hòutiān] huì lái?
Lǐsì tomorrow *ODISJ/IDISJc.

Lan sẽ

đến

Mandarinday.after will comevào [ngày mai *hoặc/hay ngày kia]?

Lan will arrive intomorrow *ODISJ/IDISJ day.after*ba/nad. Lastoi [khónana

Vietnamese

sónena] phiw?

Tiwa

Lastoi tomorrow *ODISJ/IDISJ day.after come(Dawson, 2020: 87, p.c.)(5) Polar question:‘Will L. come tomorrow or the day after?’ (PolQ)a.

Tulee-ko Liisa [huomenta tai/*vai

ylihuomenta]?

Finnishcomes-Q Liisa tomorrow ODISJ/*IDISJ day.afterb. Lǐsì [míngtiān huòzhe/% háishì hòutiān] huì láiLǐsì tomorrow ODISJ/% IDISJc.

Lan sẽ

đến

Mandarinday.after will come POLQ

vào [ngày mai hoặc/% hay ngày kia] à?

Lan will arrive ind. Lastoi [khónana

ma?

Vietnamese

tomorrow ODISJ/% IDISJ day.after POLQ
ba/*nasónena] phiw ná?

Lastoi tomorrow ODISJ/*IDISJ day.after come POLQ

3

Tiwa
(cf Dawson, 2020: 79, 87, p.c.)

Distinct ordinary and interrogative disjunctions are also attested in Albanian, Amharic, Egyptian and Syrian Arabic, Basque, Belarusian, Buriat, Georgian, Gothic, Kannada, Latin, Lezgian, Lithuanian, Malagasy, Marathi, Polish, Sinhala, Somali, Ukranian, and Yoruba. See Moravcsik 1971; Haspelmath 2007;
Mauri 2008a,b; Mauri and van der Auwera 2012 and references therein.4

2

Neutralization
 Certain environments “neutralize” the difference between ordinary and interrogative disjunctionin Mandarin (Lin, 2008; Huang, 2010; Erlewine, 2014; Ito, 2014) and Vietnamese.
– Where “neutralization” occurs, the result is an ordinary disjunction interpretation. The interrogative disjunction loses its special AltQ-raising ability.

(6) Neutralization in conditionals, in Mandarin and Vietnamese:a.

[Yàoshì Akiu [cízhí huòzhe/háishi tuìxiū] dehuà] qǐngif

Akiu resign ODISJ/IDISJ

retireCONDgàosù wǒ.

please tell

1sg
(Huang, 2010: 128)

‘If Akiu resigns or retires, please tell me.’b. [Nếu [Minh hoặc/hay Kim] gọi đến] thìif

Mandarin

bảo là

tôi đang họp.

Vietnamese

Minh ODISJ/IDISJ Kim call come then say that 1sg PROG meeting‘If Minh or Kim calls, say that I’m in a meeting.’(7) Neutralization with acceptability predicate, in Mandarin and Vietnamese:
a.

[Júzi

huòzhe/háishi píngguǒ] dōu kěyǐ.

orange ODISJ/IDISJ

apple

Mandarin

all ok‘An orange and/or an apple are both ok.’

(Lin, 2008: 4)

b. [Minh hoặc/hay Kim] cũng/đều ok.

Vietnamese

Minh ODISJ/IDISJ Kim also/all

ok‘Minh and/or Kim are both ok.’(8) Variable neutralization in polar questions, in Mandarin and Vietnamese:a.

% A xǐhuān [B háishì C] ma?

A likeB IDISJ

Mandarin

C POLQ‘Does A like B or C?’ (PolQ)
4(* in Dong 2009: 74, ok in Huang 2010: 130)

I am primarily interested in cases where ODISJ and IDISJ appear to be syntactically equivalent in the size of disjuncts that theytake. Therefore I do not discuss cases like Japanese, where alternative questions necessarily involve disjuncts of clausal size,
unlike ordinary disjunction; see Uegaki 2018.

4b.

% Minh có

hay trà sen] không?

uống [trà nhài

Vietnamese

Minh ASR drink tea jasmine IDISJ tea lotus POLQ
‘Does Minh drink jasmine tea or lotus tea?’ (PolQ)(as per Anne Nguyen, p.c.) But there is no comparable neutralization in Finnish or Tiwa!
(9) Non-neutralization in Tiwa conditionals:[Mukton na

Saldi phi-gai-do],Tonbor khâduw?

Mukton IDISJ Saldi come-COND-TOP Tonbor happy‘Will Tonbor be happy if Mukton comes or if Saldi comes?’ (AltQ)* ‘Tonbor will be happy if Mukton or Saldi comes.’ (declarative)(10)(Dawson 2020: 79, p.c.)

Non-neutralization in Finnish conditionals:
a.

Olen

onnellinen, [jos [Pekka tai/*vai

be.1sg happy

ifLiina] tulee].

Pekka ODISJ/*IDISJ Liina comes‘I will be happy if Pekka or Liina comes.’b. Olisit-ko

onnellise-mpi, [jos [Pekka tai/vai

be.COND.2sg-Q happy-COMP

if

Liina] tulee]?

Pekka ODISJ/IDISJ Liina comestai: ‘Would you be happier if one of Pekka or Liisa comes?’ (PolQ / *AltQ)
vai: ‘Would you be happier if Pekka comes or if Liisa comes?’ (AltQ / *PolQ) Neutralizing environments are (roughly) those where wh-words have non-interrogative uses.
(11)

Simple clauses with wh-words become wh-questions:a.

Wǒ xǐhuān shenme
1sg like

Mandarinb. Tân mới gặp

what

Vietnamese

Tân just meet whoi.

* ‘I like something.’ (declarative)i.

* ‘Tân just met someone.’ (decl.)

ii.

✓‘What do I like?’ (WhQ)

ii.

✓‘Who did Tân just meet?’ (WhQ)(Li, 1992: 125)
(12)

ai

(Tran, 2009: 1)

Wh-indefinites in conditionals: (cf 6)a.

Yàoshi/rúguǒ tāifxǐhuān shénme...

3sg like

Mandarin

what‘If theysg like anything...’(Li, 1992: 128)5

b. [Nếu ai
if

đến]

thì

Anh Thơ sẽ

rất

vui.

Vietnamese

who arrive then Anh Thơ FUT very happy‘If anyone arrives, Anh Thơ will be happy.’(13)(Tran, 2009: 140)

Wh-indefinites in polar questions: (cf 8)a.

shénme ma?

Qiáo Fēng mǎi-leQiáo Fēng buy-ASP what

Mandarin

POLQ(Cheng, 1991: 114)

‘Did Qiáo Fēng buy anything?’
b. Cô ấy có
she

gặp

ai

không?

Vietnamese

ASR meet who POLQ

‘Did/Does she meet anyone?’(Tran, 2009: 140)

Summary of non-interrogative wh and non-interrogative IDISJ (neutralization) environments:
Vietnamese

MandarinwhIDISJ

IDISJ’wh

IDISJ

conditionals✓ (12a)✓ (6a)*✓ (12b)✓ (6b)

unconditionals

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

‘all’ + acceptability✓✓ (7a)✓✓ (7b)‘all’ + episodic

✓

✓

✓

*

PolQ

✓ (13a)% (8a)✓ (13b)% (8b)

existential verb

*

*

✓

*

negation (high)✓✓negation (low)

*

*

✓

*

epistemic modals

✓

✓

*

✓

*

‘seems like’

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

*

(Mandarin IDISJ’ reflects a subset of speakers.)

3

Towards a proposal

Here I present the directions of my analysis, only sketching technical details. See Appendix for details.
• I adopt an approach to Hamblinian question semantics within Alternative Semantics (Rooth, 1985).
(See also Beck 2006; Beck and Kim 2006; Kotek 2019, a.o.)6• Wh-phrases introduce a set of alternatives as their alternative set, but no defined ordinary value(Ramchand, 1997; Beck, 2006).
(14) a.

JwhoKo is undefinedb. JwhoKalt = e.g. {Alex, Bobby, Chris}• A clause containing (14) does not result in a normally interpretable meaning. An operator like
ALTSHIFT (Kotek 2016, 2019) can apply, turning a wh-containing clause meaning into a question.
 I propose that ODISJ and IDISJ produce (the same) wh-phrase-like meanings.
(15) a.

JBobby ODISJ/IDISJ ChrisKo undefinedb. JBobby ODISJ/IDISJ ChrisKalt = {Bobby, Chris}• Like wh-containing structures, ODISJ/IDISJ-containing structures are not directly interpretable.
– ALTSHIFT can apply, producing an alternative question meaning.
– I also propose existential closure operators ∃ (specifically, two variants) that can apply,
resulting in a kind of indefinite meaning.
 Mandarin-type neutralization can be (mostly) explained by the semantics of these environments:– Wh-words have non-interrogative uses in free choice / negative polarity licensing environments in Mandarin (see e.g. Li, 1992; Lin, 1998; Cheng and Giannakidou, 2013) and
Vietnamese (Tran and Bruening, 2013).
– These are environments that quantify over individual disjuncts (see e.g. Aloni 2007; Simons
2005 on modals, Alonso-Ovalle 2006 on conditionals), thereby interpreting the result of ODISJ
and IDISJ (and wh) equivalently.
(The facts for non-interrogative uses under negation are a bit more complicated.) On top of this semantic foundation, I propose that there is a role lexicalized morphosyntactic
differences as well. Expressions that introduce alternatives (wh, disjunctions) may also establish
syntactic dependencies with their interpreting operators, via Agree.
• ODISJ bears a [u∃∃ ] feature, an ∃ operator and blocking application of ALTSHIFT.
IDISJ lacks this feature, allowing its alternatives to form a question, just like wh-phrases do.
Without further differences, the semantics predicts neutralization in certain environments.
7 IDISJ has a [uALTSHIFT] feature in Finnish-type languages but not in the Mandarin-type.
Note that Finnish does have certain environments where wh-words have non-interrogative uses, but vai
is still not neutralized there. Embedded vai is possible for an embedded AltQ.
(16)

Non-interrogative wh in unconditional, but no neutralization:a.

[Vaikka

kuka tulee], avaisin

oven.

even.though who come open.COND.1sg door
‘No matter who comes, I would open the door.’b. [Vaikka[Pekka tai/*vai

Liina] tulee], avaisin

oven.

even.though Pekka ODISJ/*IDISJ Liina come open.COND.1sg door
‘No matter whether Pekka or Liina comes, I would open the door.’

4

Conclusion

A number of languages of the world lexically distinguish the disjunctor in alternative questions (“interrogative disjunction”) vs ordinary disjunction.
 In some languages (Mandarin and Vietnamese), IDISJ behaves like ODISJ in certain environments.
– Neutralization tends to occur in environments where wh-words have non-interrogative uses.
– These are roughly free choice / negative polarity licensing environments.
 In contrast, some other languages (Finnish and Tiwa) appear to never allow such neutralization.
IDISJ is syntactically specified to lead to AltQ interpretation.
Q: How does ODISJ vs IDISJ behave in your language?
Q: What cues lead learners to converge on the correct type of distinction?

References
Aloni, Maria. 2007. Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics 15:65–94.
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis. 2006. Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Massachusetts Amherst.
Alves, Mark J. 2009. Sino-Vietnamese grammatical vocabulary and sociolinguistic conditions for borrowing. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 1:1–9.
8

Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics
14:1–56.
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9:165–208.
Biezma, María, and Kyle Rawlins. 2015. Alternative questions. Language and Linguistics Compass
9:450–468.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Anastasia Giannakidou. 2013. The non-uniformity of wh-indeterminates withpolarity and free choice in Chinese. In Strategies of quantification, ed. Kook-Hee Gil, Stephen Harlow,
and George Tsoulas, 123–154. Oxford University Press.
Dawson, Virginia. 2020. Existential quantification in Tiwa. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
Dong, Hongyuan. 2009. Issues in the semantics of Mandarin questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell
University.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014. Alternative questions through focus alternatives in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 48), ed. Andrea
Beltrama, Tasos Chatzikonstantinou, Jackson L. Lee, Mike Pham, and Diane Rak, 221–234.
Hamblin, Charles. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10:41–53.
Han, Chung-hye, and Maribel Romero. 2004. Disjunction, focus, and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 35:179–
217.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. Timothy
Shopen, volume 2, 1–51. Cambridge University Press, second edition.
Howell, Anna, Vera Hohaus, Polina Berezovskaya, Konstantin Sachs, Julia Braun, Şehriban Durmaz, andSigrid Beck. 2022. (No) variation in the grammar of alternatives. Linguistic Variation 22:1–77.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1991. Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions. In Interdisciplinary approaches to linguistics: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara,
305–332. Springer.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Yen-hui Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge
University Press.
Huang, Rui-heng Ray. 2010. Disjunction, coordination, and question: a comparative study. Doctoral
Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.
Ito, Satomi. 2014. 現代中国語における̀̀还是''と̀̀或者''の交替現象 [The phenomenon of alternating
9

háishi and hùozhe in Modern Chinese]. お茶の水女子大学中国文学会報 [Bulletin of the Ochanomizu
University Sinological Society] 118–136.
Kaiser, Elsi. 2003. A question of case. In Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference on Linguistics, ed. Anne Dahl and Peter Svenonius, 694–707.
Kotek, Hadas. 2016. On the semantics of wh-questions. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20, ed.
Nadine Bade, Polina Berezovskaya, and Anthea Schöller, 424–447.
Kotek, Hadas. 2019. Composing questions. MIT Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch derzeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, HSK, 825–834. Walterde Gruyter.
Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6:57–123.
Lee, Young-Suk, and Laurence Horn. 1995. Any as indefinite plus even. Manuscript, Yale University,
May 1995.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1992. Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1:125–
155.
Lin, Hsin-yin. 2008. Disjunctions in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of haishi ‘or’. Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University. URL http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/
59442072851903271049.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 1998. On existential polarity wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
7:219–255.
Mauri, Caterina. 2008a. Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Mouton de
Gruyter.
Mauri, Caterina. 2008b. The irreality of alternatives: Towards a typology of disjunction. Studies in
Language 32:28–55.
Mauri, Caterina, and Johan van der Auwera. 2012. Connectives. In Cambridge handbook of pragmatics,
ed. Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, chapter 19, 377–401. Cambridge University Press.
Meertens, Erlinde. 2019. How prosody disambiguates between alternative and polar questions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium, 299–308.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1971. On disjunctive connectives. Language Sciences 15:27–34.
Phan, John Duong. 2013. Lacquered words: The evolution of Vietnamese under Sinitic influences fromthe 1st century BCE through the 17th century CE. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Pruitt, Kathryn, and Floris Roelofsen. 2013. The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions.
Linguistic Inquiry 44:632–650.
10

Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 1997. Questions, polarity and alternative semantics. In Proceedings of
NELS 27, 383–396. GLSA.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116.
Simons, Mandy. 2005. Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural
Language Semantics 13:271–316.
Tran, Thuan. 2009. Wh-quantification in Vietnamese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware.
Tran, Thuan, and Benjamin Bruening. 2013. Wh-phrases as indefinites: A Vietnamese perspective. In
Linguistics of Vietnamese: an international survey, ed. Daniel Hole and Elisabeth Löbel, 217–241. deGruyter.
Tsai, Cheng-Yu Edwin. 2015. Toward a theory of Mandarin quantification. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard.
Uegaki, Wataru. 2018. A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle ka in indefinites, questions, anddisjunctions. Glossa 3.
Vainikka, Anne. 1987. Why can or mean and or or. In University of massachusetts occasional papers inlinguistics, volume 13.

Appendix: More detailed proposal
Questions in Rooth-Hamblin semantics
I adopt an approach to Hamblinian question semantics within Alternative Semantics (Rooth, 1985). See
also Beck 2006, Beck and Kim 2006, Kotek 2019, among others.
(17)

Alternative Semantics (Rooth, 1985, 1992):
We keep track of two dimensions of meaning. For any syntactic object α, we compute:a.

the ordinary semantic value JαKo ; andb. the alternative set (or focus semantic value) JαKalt , the set of all ordinary semantic values
obtained by substituting alternatives for any F-marked subparts of α.
(18)Interpretability:(based on Rooth, 1992; Beck, 2006)

To interpret α, JαKo must be defined and ∈ JαKalt .
When using Alternative Semantics for focus, Interpretability is generally always ensured.
• A wh-phrase has a set of possible values (≈ short answers) as its alternative set (inspired by Hamblin 1973), with no defined ordinary semantic value (Ramchand, 1997; Beck, 2006):
11

(19) JwhoKo is undefined
JwhoKalt = {xe : x is human}
JAlex likes whoKo is undefined∧ Alex likes Bobby, 







alt
∧
b. JAlex likes whoK =Alex likes Chris,




∧


Alex likes Dana (20) a.

• But (20) has no ordinary semantic value and violates Interpretability (18)! We apply ALTSHIFT(Beck’s Cint ) to result in an Interpretable question.
(21) ALTSHIFT (Kotek, 2016, 2019):
J[ALTSHIFT α]Ko = JαKalt{}
b. J[ALTSHIFT α]Kalt = JαKalta.

 I propose that ODISJ and IDISJ produce (the same) wh-phrase-like meanings.
(22) ODISJ/IDISJ with disjuncts x1 ... xn :a.

JODISJ/IDISJ {xi }Ko undefinedb. JODISJ/IDISJ {xi }Kalt =∪{Jxi K o }JAlex likes [Bobby ODISJ/IDISJ Chris]Ko undefined ∧ Alex likes Bobby, b. JAlex likes [Bobby ODISJ/IDISJ Chris]Kalt = ∧ Alex likes Chris (23) a.

If we then apply ALTSHIFT, we yield an alternative question:(24) a.

J[ALTSHIFT [Alex likes [Bobby ODISJ/IDISJ Chris]]]Ko = ∧ Alex likes Bobby,  ∧ Alex likes Chris 

b. J[ALTSHIFT [Alex likes [Bobby ODISJ/IDISJ Chris]]]Kalt = ∧ Alex likes Bobby,  ∧ Alex likes Chris  Evidence for this approach comes from island-insensitivity.
– The compositional percolation of alternative sets is insensitive to syntactic islands, explaining
focus association into islands (Rooth, 1985).

12

– We’ve already seen that alternative questions are not sensitive to adjunct islands (conditionals) in Tiwa (9) and Finnish (10). Alternative questions in Mandarin with háishì are insensitive to islands (Huang, 1991: 313–314). Similarly for Vietnamese:(25)

Bạn mua quyển sách [RC mà [Minh hay Kim] viết]?
2sg buy CL

bookVietnamese

REL Minh IDISJ Kim write‘Did you buy the book that Minh wrote or that Kim wrote?’ (AltQ)– These facts argue against approaches to alternative questions involving covert movement of
IDISJP (for these languages).

On ODISJ vs IDISJ• Expressions that introduce alternatives (wh, disjunctions) may also establish syntactic dependencies with their interpreting operators, via Agree.5
 ODISJ bears a [u∃∃ ] feature, requiring association with an ∃ operator:(27) ∃ reset with argument α :(26) ∃ with argument α :a.

J∃ αKo =∨JαKaltb. J∃ αKalt = JαKalt(28) a.

J∃reset αKo =∨JαKalt{∨}b. J∃reset αKalt =JαKalta.

J[∃reset [Alex likes [Bobby ODISJ Chris]]]Ko = ∧ A likes B ∨ A likes C

b. J[∃reset [Alex likes [Bobby ODISJ Chris]]]Kalt = {∧ A likes B ∨ A likes C}
Using ∃reset in (28) returns an Interpretable result, but using ∃ would not...

Mandarin-type neutralization• Wh-words have non-interrogative uses in free choice / negative polarity licensing environments
in Mandarin (see e.g. Li, 1992; Lin, 1998; Cheng and Giannakidou, 2013) and Vietnamese (Tranand Bruening, 2013).
 Prior work has argued that the individual disjuncts must be accessible for quantification in certain modal environments (Aloni, 2007; Simons, 2005) and conditionals (Alonso-Ovalle, 2006).
5

Agree might result in the transfer of a “focus index,” used for the interpretation of the operator. See for example Kratzer 1991
and Howell et al. 2022 on focus indices.

13

– The output of ODISJ/IDISJ (22–23) provides these disjuncts in the alternative set denotation.
– ODISJ has [u∃], which can be satisfied by ∃, not just by ∃reset . ∃ then simply passes up thealternative set denotation for its sister.
 We predict ODISJ/IDISJ neutralization, as well as non-interrogative wh, in these environments.
– And similarly with ‘all’ quantification, following e.g. Tsai 2015.
• Negation also licenses non-interrogative wh-words and IDISJ neutralization, but these facts are a
bit more complex:– In Vietnamese, negation licenses non-interrogative wh but does not neutralize IDISJ.
– In Mandarin, high negation (búshì, méiyǒu) licenses non-interrogative wh and IDISJ neutralization, but low negation (bù) has neither effect. (At least they line up!) Suppose ∃ (non-resetting) and covert EVEN can be inserted freely.
– Structures of the form [∃ ... wh/ODISJ/IDISJ] violates Interpretability.
– Focus particles like EVEN “reset” the alternative set, resolving the Interpretability problem.
– Adding EVEN derives NPI distribution (à la Lee and Horn, 1995; Lahiri, 1998):· [EVEN ...

[∃ ... wh/ODISJ/IDISJ]]× EVEN· [EVEN ... [ NEG ... [∃ ... wh/ODISJ/IDISJ]]]✓ EVEN• Supposing furthermore that there is a “floor” to the position of ∃ insertion in Mandarin — notbelow low negation — we can explain the licensing by high negation but not by low negation.
• (But the mismatch between non-interrogative wh and IDISJ neutralization remains a puzzle.)

14

Summary of non-interrogative wh and non-interrogative IDISJ (neutralization) environments:
Mandarin

Vietnamese

wh

IDISJ

IDISJ’wh

IDISJ

conditionals

✓

✓

*

✓

✓

✓

unconditionals

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

‘all’ + acceptability

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

‘all’ + episodic

✓

✓

✓

*

✓

PolQ

✓

%

✓

%

existential verb

*

*

✓

*

negation (high)✓✓negation (low)**epistemic modals✓✓‘seems like’

✓

✓

✓

Proposal

✓

*
✓

*

✓

*

✓

*

✓

✓

✓

✓

On Finnish-type languages
 IDISJ has a [uALTSHIFT] feature in Finnish-type languages but not in the Mandarin-type.6
Note that Finnish does have certain environments where wh-words have non-interrogative uses, but vai
is still not neutralized there. Embedded vai is possible for an embedded AltQ.
(29)

Non-interrogative wh in unconditional, but no neutralization:a.

[Vaikka

kuka tulee], avaisin

oven.

even.though who come open.COND.1sg door
‘No matter who comes, I would open the door.’b. [Vaikka[Pekka tai/*vai

Liina] tulee], avaisin

oven.

even.though Pekka ODISJ/*IDISJ Liina come open.COND.1sg door
‘No matter whether Pekka or Liina comes, I would open the door.’

6

Huang, Li, and Li (2009: 242 note 5) briefly suggest such a syntactic account for Mandarin, which I argue is incorrect for
Mandarin. Meertens (2019) briefly suggests such an approach for Finnish and Basque.

15