# whether / whether or not



## marioamrio

El texto es el siguiente:

_[hablando de lo que ofrece la Teoría del procesamiento de información sobre la terapia de juego]_ "Through this analysis, therapists may be able to understand how their original theoretical orientation and the theories and techniques that were brought in to the therapy interact. Schottenbauer et al. ponder '*whether clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies, or more complex strategies, than clinicians using pure-form therapies*' (2007, p.233)."

Mi consulta es por la traducción de aquella cita de Schottenbauer, en su uso de la palabra whether que la veo como clave para entender el resto de la oración.

Desde ya, muchas gracias


----------



## ukimix

"Sch y otros sopesan/ponderan/(reflexionan sobre)* si *los clínicos que usan integración ... usan más estrategias... que los clínicos que usan ...."

wheter = si (conjunción condicional)


----------



## marioamrio

Tiene mucho más sentido de esa forma!

Gracias por la ayuda y la rápida respuesta


----------



## SevenDays

Es un "whether" que en la traducción viene a ser un "si" (si los clínicos ...). En inglés, en general, en el uso diario, "whether" es sinónimo de "if"; ahora bien, en contextos formales o especializados, como en tu ejemplo, se hace una distinción: "if" se usa cuando hay una _condición_ (como en las _conditional sentences_), y "whether" cuando se habla más bien de dos _alternativas._ Ya que las alternativas son "clinicians using psychotherapy integration" y "clinicians using pure form therapies", el texto en inglés va con "whether". Ojalá haya entendido bien tu pregunta.

Saludos


----------



## marioamrio

Efectivamente, como tú dices, el texto científico que estoy traduciendo utiliza tales distinciones. Es muy completa tu respuesta, agradezco la ayuda! Ha sido bastante útil para mi comprensión del "if" y "whether".


----------



## k-in-sc

Yes, "whether" already contains the idea of "or not," and actually saying "or not" is often redundant.
Please check the forum rules for proper titling of your threads.


----------



## marioamrio

Thank you, now it's clear.


----------



## Sibutlasi

marioamrio said:


> El texto es el siguiente:
> 
> _[hablando de lo que ofrece la Teoría del procesamiento de información sobre la terapia de juego]_ "Through this analysis, therapists may be able to understand how their original theoretical orientation and the theories and techniques that were brought in to the therapy interact. Schottenbauer et al. ponder '*whether clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies, or more complex strategies, than clinicians using pure-form therapies*' (2007, p.233)."
> 
> Mi consulta es por la traducción de aquella cita de Schottenbauer, en su uso de la palabra whether que la veo como clave para entender el resto de la oración.
> 
> Desde ya, muchas gracias



No, with all due respect to everybody, I'm afraid it is *not* clear yet, . English _whether_ need *not* be followed by _or not, _because the alternatives need not have different polarity (positive/negative), and the 'alternatives' introduced by _whether_ and _or,_ in this case, are *not* those that Sevendays says, either.

The real structure of that sentence, somewhat disguised here by (subject+verb) ellipsis in the _or_ clause, is _..... ponder [ [*whether* [clinicians using psychotherapy integration use *more* strategies], *or* [ (clinicians using psychotherapy integration) (use) = _both ellipted_] *more* complex strategies], *than* clinicians using pure-form therapies]. _Thus, the verb _ponder_ is followed by a [*whether* + [clause] + *or* + [clause]] complex complement, which, as a consequence of the fact that both of its clauses contain _more_ in their respective direct objects, is, in its turn, followed by the clause introduced by _than_, which expresses the relevant 'term of comparison' expected after _than_. In Spanish, your sentence would, be more or less, Schottenbauer et al. (2007, p. 233) se preguntan '*si* los clínicos que usan 'psychotherapy integration' utilizan *más* estrategias, *o* (sujeto anafórico, omitido) (verbo = _utilizan_, omitido) estrategias *más* complejas, *que* los que usan 'pure-form therapies'. The real alternatives, therefore, are (use) _*more* strategies_ vs. (use) _*more complex* strategies_.

S.


----------



## k-in-sc

Whether the first ones *do or don't* use more, or more complex, strategies than the second ones ...


----------



## SevenDays

Right, point taken: I should've been more precise as to the two _alternatives_. The main point, though, was that this English "whether" translates as the Spanish "si"; in that, we all agree.

Cheers


----------



## ukimix

k-in-sc said:


> Whether the first ones *do or don't* use more, or more complex, strategies than the second ones ...





Sibutlasi said:


> No, with all due respect to everybody, I'm afraid it is *not* clear yet, . English _whether_ need *not* be followed by _or not, _because the alternatives need not have different polarity (positive/negative), and the 'alternatives' introduced by _whether_ and _or,_ in this case, are *not* those that Sevendays says, either.
> 
> The real structure of that sentence, somewhat disguised here by (subject+verb) ellipsis in the _or_ clause, is _..... ponder [ [*whether* [clinicians using psychotherapy integration use *more* strategies], *or* [ (clinicians using psychotherapy integration) (use) = _both ellipted_] *more* complex strategies], *than* clinicians using pure-form therapies]. _Thus, the verb _ponder_ is followed by a [*whether* + [clause] + *or* + [clause]] complex complement, which, as a consequence of the fact that both of its clauses contain _more_ in their respective direct objects, is, in its turn, followed by the clause introduced by _than_, which expresses the relevant 'term of comparison' expected after _than_. In Spanish, your sentence would, be more or less, Schottenbauer et al. (2007, p. 233) se preguntan '*si* los clínicos que usan 'psychotherapy integration' utilizan *más* estrategias, *o* (sujeto anafórico, omitido) (verbo = _utilizan_, omitido) estrategias *más* complejas, *que* los que usan 'pure-form therapies'. The real alternatives, therefore, are (use) _*more* strategies_ vs. (use) _*more complex* strategies_.
> 
> S.



I think the alternative is the strategies used by the clinicians who use psychotherapy integration *vs *the strategies used by the clinicians who use pure-form therapies. It's a comparison between what two different kind of clinicians do; not between the more or less complex their strategies, as a whole, are. In my opinion, k-ni-sc got it right; it's a double comparison:

*whether *one group uses _more strategies _*than *the other,
and *wheter *one group uses _more complex strategies_ *than* the other.

So quantity and quality. Very tricky sentence.


----------



## neal41

I agree with ukimix that it is a very tricky sentence.  I also think his/her interpretation is correct, that the sentence compares the strategies used by clinicians who use psychotherapy integration (whatever that is) versus the strategies used by clinicians who use pure-form therapies (whatver they are).  Are they different or are they not?  That having been said, I also think the sentence can be interpreted differently.  There is an underlying assumption that the two types of clinicians use different strategies.  The question then is whether one group uses more strategies than the other or whether the strategies used by one group are more complex than those used by the other group.  Are the strategies of one group more numerous than those of the other, or are they more complex than those of the other.

So, I think the sentence is ambiguous.  In the first interpretation 'whether' could be replaced by 'if', although I prefer 'whether'.  In the second interpretation 'whether' cannot be replaced by 'if'.

I've got to stop.  This sentence is making my head swim.


----------



## k-in-sc

neal41 said:


> ... The question then is whether one group uses more strategies than the other *and/*or whether the strategies used by one group are more complex than those used by the other group.  Are the strategies of one group more numerous than those of the other, *and/*or are they more complex than those of the other.


----------



## swift

De acuerdísimo con @k-in-sc y con @ukimix. Podríamos recurrir a uno de los procedimientos de la traductología que Vinay y Darbelnet llamaban _étoffement_, que consiste en inflar un poco el texto en la lengua de llegada:

_... se preguntan si, al comparar las estrategias empleadas por los clínicos que recurren a la (...) y las empleadas por aquellos que recurren a (...), los primeros emplean más estrategias —o estrategias más complejas— que los segundos, o no lo hacen.
_
¿Qué opinan?


----------



## Sibutlasi

As I said in my earlier post, although the complementizer _whether_ always entails an _or_ clause, the focus of contrast *need* *not* be the *polarity* of the respective clauses. In _I do not know whether (or not) she was born in Boston/whether she was born in Boston (or not) (= or she was not born in Boston)_ [either position of _or not_ will have the same effect in this case], it certainly is polarity that is in focus, but in _I do not know whether she was born in Boston or in New York_ (= 'or she was born in New York'), the alternative is strictly focused on the place adjuncts _in Boston/in New York _(*not* on polarity), in _I do not know whether she is American or Canadian_ (= 'or she is Canadian'), the focus of contrast is strictly between _American_ and _Canadian _(*not* on whether she is American or not), in _I wonder whether they have more scientists or more competent ones (than we have),_ the contrast is strictly focused on _more scientists_ vs. _more competent scientists_ (again, *not* on polarity), and, by parity of reasoning, in the OP's sentence _Schottenbauer et al. ponder whether clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies, or more complex strategies, than clinicians using pure-form therapies, _the focus of contrast is, again, not on polarity but *on whether the first group of clinicians use a greater number of strategies or just more complex ones than the second group of clinicians*. *If *the OP's sentence had been _Schottenbauer et al. ponder *whether or not* clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies, or more complex strategies, than clinicians using pure-form therapies, _the interpretation k-in-sec and swift endorse would be right, but in the absence of that crucial _or not_, it is completely unwarranted. At bottom, this is a matter of propositional logic: obviously, you can question whether [p v q] is true or not, but you can also question *whether it is p that is true or it is q that is true*, and what the OP's sentence does is the latter, not the former.

S.


----------



## k-in-sc

Those seem polar to me.


----------



## Sibutlasi

k-in-sc said:


> Those seem polar to me.



Well, in that case you must make sure you understand what 'polarity' is. I suggest you start by understanding the difference between 'yes/no questions', in which the clause's polarity is the focus of the question, and partial, or so-called 'wh-questions', in which the focus of the question is *anything but* the clause's polarity.

S.


----------



## swift

@Sibutlasi Su argumentación parece muy convincente, como de costumbre ;-), pero me pregunto si en este caso la puntuación no favorece más bien la interpretación que @k-in-sc anotó. Se lo pregunto a sabiendas de que la filología inglesa es su área de especialidad.


----------



## marioamrio

A pesar del intrigante debate que se decantó del post, me alegra que estén participando tan activamente poniendo en juego las traducciones e interpretaciones de cada uno. A fin de cuentas, la oración fue más interesante de lo que esperaba.
Una vez más, muchas gracias!


----------



## neal41

Having been trained as an abstract mathematician, I am familiar with propositional logic.  I am also aware that the syntax of natural languages is much more complex than propositional logic or the rather simple syntax of mathematical statements.  My intuitions as a native speaker of English indicate to me that 'whether' can be replaced by 'if' in the original sentence and that a plausible interpretation of the sentence is that the set of strategies used by one group of clinicians is different from the set of strategies used by another group of clinicians.  The speaker suggests 2 ways in which they might be different: 1) the strategies in one set are more numerous than those in the other set, and 2) the strategies in one set are more complex than those in the other set.  There are other possible ways in which the two sets could differ.  It might be that the strategies in one set are neither more numerous nor more complex than those in the other set, but that they are conceptually different.

As I said before, I believe that the sentence is ambiguous, that there are 2 possible interpretations.


----------



## marioamrio

Maybe an ambiguous traduction could be a convenient answer...


----------



## k-in-sc

What's the other interpretation? It seems unambiguous to me.


----------



## ukimix

Now I understand Sibutlasi's interpretation. And apparently there are two different ways of interpret the sentence. Let me explain them:

_Schottenbauer et al. ponder 'whether clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies, or more complex strategies, than clinicians using pure-form therapies'_

Interpretations 1: The two groups of clinicians, lets call them Group A and B, are doing different things, and Scho and friends ponder if the cause of the difference is the quantity of strategies or their complexity. In other words, they ponder wheter the difference consists in the fact that one group uses more strategies than the other *or* in the fact that one group uses more complex strategies (but possibly the same number of strategies). The comparison is quantity vs quality.

Interpretation 2: The two groups of clinicians are doing different things, but Scho and friends don't think there is just one cause of that difference; rather they admit the possibility that the clinician's strategies differ in mumber and in the level of complexity. So they wonder about what are the difference in number *and *they also wonder about what are the differences in complexity. So there are two comparisons: the first one is quantity of A's strategies vs quantity of B's strategies; and the second one is complexity of A's strategies vs complexity of B's strategies.



Spoiler: for formal logic fans



Using formal logic, it would be:

P(x,y) = y Ponder y
M(z,w) = x use more strategies than w
C(v,t) = v use more complex strategies than t

Sibutlasi: P(x, M(z,w) *∨* X(z,w))

k-in-sc: P(x, M(z,w)) *∧* P(x, C(z,w))

with x = Sho and friends
z = first type of clinicians
w = second type of clinicians



Now, I didn't know that in everyday speech there is that difference in meaning, pointed by Sibutlasi, between *whether* and *wheter or not*. If I understood what Sibu says, these two senteces have different meaning?:

_I ponder whether M is taller or stronger than P 
I ponder whether or not M is taller or stronger than P_

Is that right?

Anyway, a way to search which one is the correct interpretation, (though, like swift, I also wonder whether or not the punctuation supports k-in-sc interpretation ) is to see what Sho and friends actually did to solve their question. Lucklily maybe the text says it. So, @marioamrio , what I'd do to translate it is to see if the text provides that kind of imformation somewhere.


----------



## k-in-sc

The sentence is not either-or, it's and-or. Clearly.


----------



## ukimix

The meaning of that *or *is given by what Sho and friends did or are doing to solve their question.


----------



## k-in-sc

You guys are making this way too complicated.


----------



## Forero

I agree with K-in-SC that there is only one reasonable interpretation of the original sentence. The complexity of the sentence and the use of commas make that clear enough.

But I want to explain some things about the English word _whether_.

Sometimes _if_ means "whether", but _if_ has other meanings not shared by _whether_.

A _whether_ clause can be used either adverbially or as a noun phrase. Adverbially, it implies a choice and is often accompanied by _or not_. As a noun phrase, however, a _whether_ clause is what is known as an indirect interrogative.

The whether clause we are talking about here is the direct object of "ponder", a noun phrase. The direct interrogative here would be:

_*Do "clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies, or more complex strategies, than clinicians using pure-form therapies*"*?*_

The question is not which clinicians use, more strategies or more complex strategies, but whether they use either.

Adding _or not_ to this question, in direct or indirect form, is possible, but would be distracting since the question clearly is yes-or-no, not yes-or-no-or-maybe-sometimes.

Finally, _whether_ fits this context better than _if_ because the pondering is not at all conditional and because the question is entirely open, with no assumption as to whether its answer will be "yes" or "no".


----------



## Sibutlasi

swift said:


> @Sibutlasi Su argumentación parece muy convincente, como de costumbre ;-), pero me pregunto si en este caso la puntuación no favorece más bien la interpretación que @k-in-sc anotó. Se lo pregunto a sabiendas de que la filología inglesa es su área de especialidad.



Gracias, pero creo que la oración que comentamos no es tan compleja como han querido verla otros usuarios. Veamos si consigo explicarme mejor.

La cláusula que empieza por _than_ es un simple 'complemento' opcional de los dos _more_ que la preceden y en realidad no complica la cuestión esencial, que es el 'alcance' de _whether_. _Whether_ es sólo la forma interrogativa 'wh-' de _either_ (viene de _hw-aeither_, en Antiguo Inglés), y _either X_, significa 'cualquiera de dos X'. Lo que hace el elemento 'wh-' que se prefija a _either_, así pues, es 'preguntar' respecto a algo, sólo que en el caso de _whether_ lo que pregunta es cuál de las proposiciones alternativas _either p or q_ es verdadera (a juicio del oyente), de modo que si representamos el operador interrogativo 'wh-' por 'Q' (de 'question'), podríamos esquematizar una pregunta indirecta como _whether .... or .... _como un operador Q que tiene bajo su 'alcance' (como 'foco de la pregunta') *una disyunción de proposiciones* [either p or q], i.e., podríamos reducir todo eso a la fórmula Q[p v q].

Como señalaba en una respuesta anterior, las dos proposiciones alternativas p y q pueden ser idénticas en significado descriptivo y diferenciarse únicamente en que una  tiene 'polaridad' positiva y la otra la tiene negativa (= lleva un _not_), por ejemplo en _either she did it or she did not (do it)_ > _wh-ether she did it or she did not (do it), _que puede ser reducida a_ whether she did it or not, _o a _whether or not she did it_ en un estilo más elevado. En ese caso, las dos proposiciones alternativas son, en la notación de la lógica proposicional, p y - p, y la 'fórmula' de la pregunta indirecta con _whether... or..._ es Q[p v -p].

Pero, naturalmente, nada obliga a que las dos proposiciones alternativas difieran precisamente, y solo, en su polaridad. Pueden diferir en cualquier otro aspecto: su sujeto, su verbo, su CD, su Atributo, un auxiliar, un CC, o en cualquier modificador interno a uno de esos elementos, y siendo así ya no podemos transcribirlas en lógica proposicional como p y -p, sino como dos proposiciones independientes en contenido descriptivo, p y q, y la 'fórmula' de la pregunta disyuntiva _whether p or q_ tiene que ser la del final del párrafo primero: Q[p v q].

En cualquier caso, sea cual sea la diferencia entre p y q, se convierte automáticamente en el foco de la pregunta que el operador 'wh-' (= Q) expresa; en el caso descrito en el párrafo tercero era la polaridad y resultaba una 'pregunta indirecta' del tipo 'sí/no'; en el caso de _whether_ _clinicians..... use more strategies or more complex strategies than... _las dos proposiciones alternativas p y q son idénticas excepto en que una lleva en su CD un _more_ que es un cuantificador seguido de un sufijo de grado (_more strategies_ < = *many+-er* strategies) y la otra lleva un _more_ que es un simple 'adverbio de grado' que acompaña al adjetivo bisilábico graduable _complex_. Por eso, porque son idénticas en todo lo demás, es posible, y semi-obligada, la elipsis del sujeto y el verbo de la segunda de las proposiciones, i.e., de todo lo que no es el foco de la pregunta. El 'foco' de la pregunta disyuntiva Q[p v q], pues, está en este caso exclusivamente en la diferencia _more_ (= a greater number of) / _more complex_ [strategies] (= strategies of greater complexity)].

Como tanto el sufijo de grado _-er_ latente en el cuantificador graduado _more_ como el 'adverbio de grado' _more_ que precede a _complex_ rigen una cláusula introducida por _than_ (= el 'término de comparación'), y en este caso esa cláusula es idéntica para los dos, i.e. _than clinicians using pure-form therapies (do)_ (con elipsis del pro-predicado _do, _que remite anafóricamente a _use strategies_), para reducir la redundancia actúa un mecanismo (Right-Node Raising) que permite no repetir la cláusula con _than_ detrás de cada uno de los dos _more_. En otras palabras, nos deja reducir la oración _Schottenberger et al_ _ponder_ _whether clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies *than clinicians using pure-form therapies* or (they use: ellipted) more complex strategies *than clinicians using pure-form therapies *_a una menos redundante:  _Schottenberger et al_ _ponder_ _whether clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies, or (they use: ellipted) more complex strategies, *than clinicians using pure-form therapies. *_'Right-Node Raising' crea una copia de la cláusula con _than_ elidida tras _more strategies_ y _more complex strategies_ en las dos coordinadas, respectivamente, y, separándola con una coma para indicar que ha habido elipsis, se la adjunta a la cláusula coordinada que resulta de la disyunción.

Eso, como decía, no afecta a la esencia de la cuestión, que es lo que Schottenberger et al. se preguntan al escribir la oración que ha dado pie a este hilo. Mi respuesta, como creo haber argumentado con todo detalle, es que se preguntan únicamente *whether p or q =* *Q[p v q], *i.e., *si *[el primer grupo de clínicos usa más estrategias *o* (usa) estrategias más complejas] que el segundo.

Contra la interpretación que k-in-sec, swift, y otros participantes en este hilo han querido deducir, Schottenberger et al. *no* se preguntan _whether [p or q] *or not* [p or q] *=* _*Q[[p v q] v -[p v q]]*, que, por la Ley de Morgan, sería equivalente a  *Q[[p v q] v [-p & -q]],* o, en 'román paladino',* si *[el primer grupo de clínicos usa más estrategias *o* usa estrategias más complejas] *o* [el primer grupo de clínicos *no* usa más estrategias *ni* usa estrategias más complejas] que el segundo.

Lo que les lleva a ver toda esa falsa complejidad en esa oración, en el fondo sencilla, es que creen que una pregunta con _whether_ *siempre* debe contener una disyunción de *polaridad* (superpuesta aquí a otra disyunción, la que existe entre usar un número mayor de estrategias y usar estrategias más sofisticadas). Como ya expliqué anteriormente, eso no es así.

S.


----------



## swift

Sibutlasi said:


> para reducir la redundancia actúa un mecanismo (Right-Node Raising) que permite no repetir la cláusula con _than_ detrás de cada uno de los dos _more_.


¡Claro! Ahí radica el motivo de mi despiste y de mi mala interpretación. Muchas gracias por la exposición tan clara.


----------



## neal41

ukimix said:


> If I understood what Sibu says, these two senteces have different meaning?:
> 
> _I ponder whether M is taller or stronger than P
> I ponder whether or not M is taller or stronger than P_
> 
> Is that right?



In the case of the second sentence there are 4 possibilities in the mind of the speaker:
1) M is taller than P but not stronger
2) M is stronger than P but not taller
3) M is both stronger and taller than P
4) M and P are the same as to strength and tallness

The first sentence suggests that the speaker already believes that M is taller than P or that M is stronger than P and he wonders which it is.  The hearer will be more acutely aware of this assumption on the part of the speaker if the speaker emphasizes the word 'stronger'.  Nevertheless, the sentence does not imply that the speaker's belief is correct and accepts the possibility of the same 4 outcomes.

So for me the only difference in the sentences is the speaker's assumption, which might or might not be correct.


----------



## neal41

Forero and k-in-sc, native speakers of English, believe there is only one reasonable interpretation.  Likewise, Sibutlasi and swift, native speakers of Spanish, believe there is only one reasonable interpretation.  The first group's interpretation is, however, different from the the second group's interpretation.  I and ukimix believe that both interpretations are reasonble and that the sentence is ambiguous.

Is this a correct reading of the previous posts, or am I confused?  And, marioamrio, are you less confused that you were to begin with?


----------



## marioamrio

Thank you, I highly needed a summary of everyone's opinions (I hope it is accurrate). I am definitely less confused now, but maybe this topic is ready for a second phase: a recommended spanish traduction, so we can concretely apply the previously discussed ideas.

Thank you all for your efforts!


----------



## ukimix

neal41 said:


> In the case of the second sentence there are 4 possibilities in the mind of the speaker:
> 1) M is taller than P but not stronger
> 2) M is stronger than P but not taller
> 3) M is both stronger and taller than P
> 4) M and P are the same as to strength and tallness
> 
> The first sentence suggests that the speaker already believes that M is taller than P or that M is stronger than P and he wonders which it is.  The hearer will be more acutely aware of this assumption on the part of the speaker if the speaker emphasizes the word 'stronger'.  Nevertheless, the sentence does not imply that the speaker's belief is correct and accepts the possibility of the same 4 outcomes.
> 
> So for me the only difference in the sentences is the speaker's assumption, which might or might not be correct.



Thanks!




neal41 said:


> Forero and k-in-sc, native speakers of English, believe there is only one reasonable interpretation.  Likewise, Sibutlasi and swift, native speakers of Spanish, believe there is only one reasonable interpretation.  The first group's interpretation is, however, different from the the second group's interpretation.  I and ukimix believe that both interpretations are reasonble and that the sentence is ambiguous.
> 
> Is this a correct reading of the previous posts, or am I confused?



That's it. And beyond which interpretation is right, it's mandatory to take in account the pragmatic aspect of the meaning. Just to not translate literally.


----------



## Sibutlasi

neal41 said:


> Forero and k-in-sc, native speakers of English, believe there is only one reasonable interpretation.  Likewise, Sibutlasi and swift, native speakers of Spanish, believe there is only one reasonable interpretation.  The first group's interpretation is, however, different from the the second group's interpretation.  I and ukimix believe that both interpretations are reasonble and that the sentence is ambiguous.
> 
> Is this a correct reading of the previous posts, or am I confused?  And, marioamrio, are you less confused that you were to begin with?



Your summary is basically right, but instead of saying that my interpretation is reasonable and k-in-sec's and Forero's interpretation's is not, I would rather say that in the absence of an explicit "or not" after "whether" in the OP's sentence, mine was the minimal interpretation compatible with the syntax, whereas K-in-sec's (and then Forero's) interpretation required assuming a deleted "or not" and made the sentence more complicated than apparently intended by Schottenberger et al.

My argument, developed at some length in previous postings, was based mainly on two plausible assumptions that can be simply stated without repeating any technicalities.

One is that a sentence like _I am not sure *whether* [she was in Boston *or* in New York]_ is *not* synonymous of _I am not sure *whether* [[she was in Boston or in New York] *or* not]_ (= I am not sure whether she was in Boston or in New York *or she was somewhere else*). In the first sentence, the scope of the operator *whether* reaches only into the disjunction _in Boston/in New York_, whereas in the second sentence only the second, and higher, *or *is under the scope of _*whether,*_ which changes the interpretation. This is a trivial consequence of two facts, 1) that, in a disjunction [A v B], term A may itself be disjunctive (A = [p v q]), which makes [A v B] = [[p v q] v B], and 2) that language, like algebra and logic, are hierarchically organized systems, one of the consequences being that language operators operate on the *hierarchically closest* operand available, which in the second sentence is the hierarchically 'higher' _or_ between [p v q] and B, not the (linearly closer, but hierarchically less accessible) _or_ embedded in [p v q].

The second assumption was that the comparative clause _than clinicians using pure-form therapie_s was attached to the disjunction _whether [clinicians using psychotherapy integration use more strategies __, or (they use) more complex strategies__, ] _by twofold ellipsis plus Right-Node-Raising (the process we see at work in _I built __, and my son painted __, our new doghouse, _or_ in I don´t know whether she was in Boston __, or (she was) in New York __, when her husband died_), which would explain the commas after the two instances of _strategies_.

However, I could not help worrying about the fact that I, a linguist, but also a non-native speaker, should be the only one that prefers the simpler reading allowed by the syntax. Why should obviously very competent native speakers like Forero or k-in-sec unhesitantly select the more complex indirect yes/no question interpretation, in spite of the absence in the OP's sentence of the crucial _or not_ (/_or don't_) that would unambiguously trigger it?

After some reconsideration, I think I can now answer that question: although the commas after each instance of _strategies_ would immediately follow from the Right-Node-Raising account I instinctively favoured, *there is an alternative reason* (one I had not considered, thanks Swift #18!) why the comma *after the first* instance of _strategies_ might be there, i.e., that , _or more complex strategies,_ should be just *a parenthetical rewording* of the expression _more strategies, _*rather than a genuine alternative*_. _That would not prevent Right-Node-Raising from applying to _more strategies__, or more complex strategies__,_ as I assumed, but would automatically leave the _or_ of the parenthetical *outside the scope* of _whether _(as happens to parentheticals in general) and, in that case, _whether _would still entail a tacit _or not/or don't _that *would* license the overall indirect yes/no question reading that k-in-sec and Forero defend.

That is perfectly possible, by all means, and makes the sentence *ambiguous* (and tricky, yes), after all, as Ukimix and neal41 claimed (if not for the same reasons, as far as I can tell). Therefore, I accept that k-in-sec and Forero's indirect yes/no question interpretation *may* be right, after all, but I do not withdraw my own, simpler one, nor any of the syntactic, semantic and logical argumentation it was based on (see #8, #15, #28). Hence, at bottom, there is no deep disagreement between us, as I feared, just an ambiguity that only the overall content of Schottenberger et al.'s article (or, anyway, more context in that section of their text) would allow us to disambiguate.

I hope this clarifies things for the OP.

S.


----------



## Forero

Sibutlasi said:


> Your summary is basically right, but instead of saying that my interpretation is reasonable and k-in-sec's and Forero's interpretation's is not, I would rather say that in the absence of an explicit "or not" after "whether" in the OP's sentence, mine was the minimal interpretation compatible with the syntax, whereas K-in-sec's (and then Forero's) interpretation required assuming a deleted "or not" and made the sentence more complicated than apparently intended by Schottenberger et al.


I think you are making this more complicated, and the reason may be that Spanish does not have an exact synonym for _whether_.

In fact, adding "or not" to a _whether_ noun clause does not do what you imagine it does. (You may be confusing it with a _whether_ adverbial clause.) A _whether_ noun clause is an indirect yes-no question. For example "I am not sure whether he is going" contains the indirect question "whether he is going." It is indirect because the question is not actually being asked (it is more of a "cuestión" than a "pregunta"), but it is a question in the sense that it tells what I am wondering that makes me unsure.

The direct question would be "Is he going?". We could ask "Is he going, or not?" but that is really two questions, "Is he going?" and "Is he not going?", joined by "or". If we want to know whether he is going, we ask simply "Is he going?", but if we are, for example, getting "mixed signals" about whether he is going, we might ask "Is he going, or not?". This is what I am concerned about if I say "I am not sure whether he is going or not."

In other words, in a _whether_ noun clause, which is always an indirect yes/no question, "or not" is not something that can be "deleted" or made "tacit" but something that may be added to insist on a simple yes-or-no outcome.

But in the context of the sentence about clinicians, "or not" sounds silly. Nobody involved needs to be prompted to get a straight answer.





> ...
> After some reconsideration, I think I can now answer that question: although the commas after each instance of _strategies_ would immediately follow from the Right-Node-Raising account I instinctively favoured, *there is an alternative reason* (one I had not considered, thanks Swift #18!) why the comma *after the first* instance of _strategies_ might be there, i.e., that , _or more complex strategies,_ should be just *a parenthetical rewording* of the expression _more strategies, _*rather than a genuine alternative*_. _That would not prevent Right-Node-Raising from applying to _more strategies__, or more complex strategies__,_ as I assumed,


Indeed , I take the _or_ part as parenthetical.





> but would automatically leave the _or_ of the parenthetical *outside the scope* of _whether _(as happens to parentheticals in general) and, in that case, _whether _would still entail a tacit _or not/or don't _that *would* license the overall indirect yes/no question reading that k-in-sec and Forero defend.


But this does not follow.

A _whether_ noun clause is not "licensed" by a parenthesis to have an indirect question reading: it is, by its nature, an indirect yes/no question.





> That is perfectly possible, by all means, and makes the sentence *ambiguous* (and tricky, yes),


This does not follow either. The presence of the parenthesis does not add to or alter the meaning of "whether", or make it ambiguous.

If I ask "Do you know that man's name?", I am asking a yes/no question. You may feel compelled to give me the man's name, if you know it, because you "read between the lines" and "know" I want his name now, but the question itself, interpreted literally, is only asking for a "yes" or a "no".

Similarly, "I wonder whether you know that man's name", taken literally, does not say I want you to give me the name, and the sentence about the clinicians is not literally about four questions, but only one, with a parenthetical choice.

This is not to say that the clinicians did not provide answers to all four questions, or that Schottenbauer et al. did not ponder all four, but only that the sentence in question is not explicit about that, and not being explicit is not the same as being ambiguous.


----------



## Sibutlasi

Forero said:


> I think you are making this more complicated, and the reason may be that Spanish does not have an exact synonym for _whether_.



I respectfully disagree; it is you that has chosen an unnecessarily complicated interpretration because you assume, wrongly, that a _whether_ clause complement of verbs like _ponder, wonder, not know, (not) be sure_, etc. cannot but be an indirect yes/no question. Perhaps you have not read my previous posts, or not carefully enough, but that is plain wrong (as it is for the corresponding Spanish construction; do not imagine any 'interference' between my native Spanish and my English; I know perfectly well what Spanish and English have in this chapter of grammar). Simply, you are *absolutely wrong* in this respect, as I showed, with relevant examples, in #15.



> In fact, adding "or not" to a _whether_ noun clause does not do what you imagine it does. (You may be confusing it with a _whether_ adverbial clause.) A _whether_ noun clause is an indirect yes-no question. For example "I am not sure whether he is going" contains the indirect question "whether he is going." It is indirect because the question is not actually being asked (it is more of a "cuestión" than a "pregunta"), but it is a question in the sense that it tells what I am wondering that makes me unsure.



First, there is no such thing as a '_whether_ *noun *clause'; you are confusing categories and functions. _Whether_-complement clauses are clauses, *not* nouns or noun phrases. They can sometimes function as complements of verbs that also take NP complements (e.g., _not know_), but they can just as well complement adjectives (e.g., _not sure, uncertain, unclear,_ etc.), a function nouns and NPs *cannot* play at all (cf._ *I'm not sure the reason, *It is unclear to me the answer_), not to mentions *dozens* of other syntactic and semantic properties that clauses have and NPs do not. Second: I insist, a _whether_ complement clause is *not* _eo ipso_ an indirect *yes-no* question; *only* _whether_-complement clauses in which the complementizer (operator) _whether_ targets the *polarity *component of the clause are indirect yes-no questions. Finally, please do not tell me what a _whether_ clause does, or is, or give me examples, or explain to me why _whether_ complement clauses are called 'indirect questions', or assume I may need to be enlightened as to the difference between a complement and a circumstantial adjunct. From someone who is supposed to have read my previous contributions to this and probably other threads, that is, simply, offensive.



> The direct question would be "Is he going?". We could ask "Is he going, or not?" but that is really two questions, "Is he going?" and "Is he not going?", joined by "or". If we want to know whether he is going, we ask simply "Is he going?", but if we are, for example, getting "mixed signals" about whether he is going, we might ask "Is he going, or not?". This is what I am concerned about if I say "I am not sure whether he is going or not."
> In other words, in a _whether_ noun clause, which is always an indirect yes/no question, "or not" is not something that can be "deleted" or made "tacit" but something that may be added to insist on a simple yes-or-no outcome.



As to the first paragraph, it is correct, but, again, it is completely unnecessary for you to 'enlighten' me in that respect. In the second one, first you insist on your favourite, but totally wrong, assumption, and then you try to make too much of a false distinction (or to attribute to me something I could never have said): obviously nothing can be deleted when it is necessary to insist on it (e.g., when it is in focus), but many kinds of syntactic constituents can be 'omitted' *at the phonetic level* (= left unpronounced, but still computed at the syntactic and semantic levels) when they can be recovered from 'context' (e.g., presupposed, or inferred from the selection preferences of the heads that govern them), and the _or not_ that may, but need *not*, follow _whether_ is one of them. Of course, _or not_ may *not be omissible at all*: in the sentence_ I do not know whether she studied at Oxford or Cambridge or not, but she certainly has had a first-class education_, _or not_ is *not* "something that may be added to insist on" the yes-no interpretation. It is crucial if the yes-no interpretation is to be possible at all; drop _or not _and you no longer get an indirect yes/no question reading, which, of course, *proves* that your favourite assumption, that a _whether_-complement clause is necessarily an indirect yes/no question, is *false*.

Next, you completely misinterpret this paragraph of mine:

"After some reconsideration, I think I can now answer that question: although the commas after each instance of _strategies_ would immediately follow from the Right-Node-Raising account I instinctively favoured, *there is an alternative reason* (one I had not considered, thanks Swift #18!) why the comma *after the first* instance of _strategies_ might be there, i.e., that , _or more complex strategies,_ should be just *a parenthetical rewording* of the expression _more strategies, _*rather than a genuine alternative*_. _That would not prevent Right-Node-Raising from applying to _more strategies__, or more complex strategies__,_ as I assumed, but would automatically leave the _or_ of the parenthetical *outside the scope* of _whether _(as happens to parentheticals in general) and, in that case, _whether _would still entail a tacit _or not/or don't _that *would* license the overall indirect yes/no question reading that k-in-sec and Forero defend."

You say that you take the _or_ part as parenthetical (as I foresaw), but you attribute to me a preposterous idea. If you read my text carefully, I do *not* say that a _whether_ clause is "licensed" by a parenthesis to have an indirect question reading. No linguist would say anything as silly as that; parentheticals are not even integrated in the structure of the clause and cannot satisfy selection restrictions or supply variables to operators like whether! What I do say is something completely different, i.e., that the parenthetical is, like all parentheticals, *outside the scope* of the operator _whether_, and that is the reason why the _or..._ that constitutes the parenthetical does *not* 'count' as an alternative focus, and why _whether_ can, by default, *entail* a second _or_-element (an _or not_, in this case) that does license the indirect yes/no question interpretation. Thus, what you object to is not my account at all, but a straw man of your own lack of understanding.

As to the rest of your reply, I do not see in it anything relevant, or worth saying, either as an argument for your own view, or as a counterargument to any of my claims.

Do not be offended, but, on the whole, I rather suspect that either you have not read my posts #15, #28 and #34 (or not carefully enough), or you simply do not understand concepts like 'operator', 'scope/c-command', 'polarity', 'focus/target of an operator', the hierarchical structure of clauses, the 'detached' syntactic status of parentheticals, or the elementary propositional logic analyses I provided in #28. [I hope the fact that the latter was written in Spanish was no obstacle in that respect]. As such concepts are relatively technical tools of formal syntax and semantics, contemplating the possibility that you may not be familiar with them need not be nearly as potentially offensive to you as is to me your apparently assuming that I must be told what a _whether_-complement clause is, given examples, warned not to confuse complements with 'adverbials' and the rest of it.

S.


----------



## Forero

@Sibutlasi: I did not mean any disrespect.

We apparently have been taught different terminology. I call any word or group of words acting as subject (of a verb) or as object (of a verb or preposition) a "noun phrase". I was taught to call it that in school (a long time ago).

My experience as a native speaker tells me that a "noun phrase" that contains a finite verb and begins with _whether_ is always an indirect yes/no question and that adding "or not" does not change this.

Your experience and training may tell you otherwise, and I respect that, but I want you to understand that (some of us) native speakers do not understand _whether_ the way you do in the sorts of sentences we have been talking about in this thread.

At least for K-in-SC and me, it really is that simple.

I will only add that, in my experience, a phrase of the same form (beginning with _whether_ and containing a finite verb) that acts as a modifier follows different rules, including the requirement for explicit disjunction of exactly the kind you have been explaining and the option to use subjunctive rather than indicative verb forms.


----------



## Sibutlasi

@Forero: I myself did not mean to sound as harsh as I do, now I reread what I wrote. Please accept my apologies.

I understand that to someone who knows traditional grammar, even very well, but may not be intimately familiar with the kind of grammars and argumentation current syntacticians and semanticists believe in, my remark that _whether... or_ need not mean/entail the reading _whether or not_ may sound wrong. Fifty years ago, I myself was taught, in that respect, as you say you were. I was also taught lots of false rules and generalizations, in particular in what concerns so-called 'direct' and 'indirect' questions and adversative coordination. Only later did I discover that things were much more subtle than acknowledged in traditional reference grammars and dictionaries.

For example, I was taught that there existed a dichotomy between yes/no questions and wh-questions, and that any question not containing an explicit interrogative (and so, tonic) _wh_-word/phrase (_who, what, where, when, why, how, which car, since when,_ etc.) was a yes/no question. According to that rule (of thumb), (1),  (2) and (3) would all be yes/no questions:

(1) Are you American? [Rising intonation] Answer: Yes/No (OK)
(2) Are you American or Canadian? [Rise on _American or Canadian_] [Answer: Yes/No (OK); optional amplification if the answer is _yes_: I'm Canadian/American]
(3) Are you American (,) or Canadian? [Rise on _American_, fall on _Canadian_]: [Answer: (I'm) American/Canadian (OK); a simple *Yes/*No would be wrong]

Yet, whereas to (1) and (2) the answer can, indeed, be _yes_ or _no_, the answer to (3) *cannot* be _yes_ or no. Sentence (3), therefore, is *not* a yes/no question. There are other differences: sentence (2) [plausible if being either American or Canadian is relevant, e.g., for the purposes of exempting somebody of certain formalities that nationals of other countries must go through] contains a simple _or_ coordination of two adjectives, not two clauses, and no ellipsis, whereas in sentence (3) _or_ applies to two clauses (in the sense of two 'predications'), although the second one is elliptical; the full form of (3) would be _Are you American, or are you Canadian?,_ although only *focal* information (= _Canadian_) is indispensable; the rest can, and usually must, be left unpronounced to avoid redundancy [an offence against Grice's maxim of Quantity, one of the pragmatic rules that govern cooperative conversation].

The 'morale' is that a certain kind of _or_-phrase can turn a yes/no question into something that is neither a yes/no question nor a _wh_-question, which makes the 'rule' I was taught wrong.

Similar misconceptions abound in what concerns so-called 'indirect questions' - which are not questions at all, as you observed, since the 'imperative' component characteristic of 'direct' questions is absent: no action at all is required on the part of the addressee; the speaker simply verbalizes his own uncertainty; an indirect _wh_-clause lacks the 'illocutionary force' of a proper question, which has well-known syntactic, semantic and phonetic consequences (e.g., absence of subject-auxiliary inversion, absence of rising intonation, restrictions on movement and extraction,... lots of them).

In this case, traditional wisdom draws a parallel distinction between 'indirect yes/no questions' and 'indirect _wh_-questions'. There is an obvious snag, of course: *all* indirect questions are introduced by _wh_-words/phrases (although 'if' is often used as an alternative to _whether_, _whether_ remains the prescribed complementizer: no indirect yes/no question is made ungrammatical as a consequence of its being introduced by _whether_ instead of _if_; the converse is not true, at least for the less tolerant speakers). Thus, there *are* *yes/no* 'questions' (although 'indirect' ones) that *are* introduced by _wh_-words (_whether_, in this case), which violates the schoolgrammar's rule of thumb above from the opposite side. [Not to mention the fact that in Old English even 'direct' yes/no questions were introduced by a _wh_-word, _Hwaeyther,_ and that there is historical evidence that _Hwaeyther_ simply stopped being pronounced in main clauses, but not in subordinate ones, in Early Middle English]. That supports the now widely shared assumption that *all* 'interrogative' clauses, be they direct ('real' questions) or indirect ones, are introduced by a wh [+Q] complementizer, although _whether_ is no longer audible in main questions.

But, of course, apart from that snag, the facts are also more complicated, because, as I claimed, not all _whether_-clauses acting as complements of verbs like _ask, ignore, ponder_, or adjectives like _unclear, unsure, uncertain_,... are 'indirect *yes/no* questions'. As I argued, sentences like _I don't know whether she studied at Oxford or at Cambridge_ (the 'indirect' counterparts of 'direct' *non*-yes/no questions like _Did she studied at Oxford (,= rise) or at Cambridge? (fall),_ parallel to sentence (3) above), do *not* focus on the polarity of the clause, but on the respective Place adjuncts. Hence, although, by default (= in the absence of an alternative _or_-phrase in Focus), _whether-_complement clauses do focus on the polarity of the clause (and so entail an _or not_ phrase that can be, and usually is, left unpronounced, because it is automatically selected by _whether_ in such circumstances) [this describes k-in-sec's and your own intuitions], *if* the clause contains a *different* _or_-phrase, and it is in Focus position, and within the 'scope' of the operator _whether_ (i.e.,  not inside a detached parenthetical), _whether_ can no longer target the polarity of the clause and must target whatever other _or_-phrase is in Focus. Under such conditions,_ whether_ *cannot* select an unpronounced _or not_, because no 'question', whether 'direct' or 'indirect', can be both polarity-focused (= yes/no) and non-polarity-focused. That is what happens in the sentence we have been discussing* unless* _or more complex strategies_ is interpreted as a parenthetical. In that case, the addition of _or not_, although unnecessary, would have a clear disambiguating function: it would completely exclude the non-indirect yes/no question interpretation I defended. In the absence of an explicit _or not_, however, there is no way to exclude the possibility that the commas around _or more complex strategies _are due to the application of Right Node Raising to allow_ than clinicians using pure-form therapies  _to function as a complement to both instances of _more_ (thereby avoiding redundancy).

I refused to make much of your insistence on the difference between complement and 'adverbial' _whether _clauses, first because we were not discussing the latter (and there was no danger at all of confusion, not on my part, anyway), but also because even 'adverbial' _whether-_clauses need *not *focus on polarity. In _Whether she studied at Oxford or at Cambridge, her knowledge of analytic philosophy is impressive_, the _whether-_clause is 'adverbial' (an adjunct, not a complement), and yet its _whether_ is not focused on polarity, but strictly on the alternative at Oxford/at Cambridge, exactly as it would in _I don't know whether she studied at Oxford or at Cambridge. _Where there is a difference between complement and adjunct _whether-_clauses is that *if* the latter are, indeed, yes/no-focused, the _or not_ phrase *must be explicit*. Thus, _Whether she studied at Oxford *or not*, her knowledge of analytic philosophy is impressive _is grammatical, whereas  *_Whether she studied at Oxford, her knowledge of analytic philosophy is impressive _is not possible.

Also irrelevant to the immediate issue were your comments on the fact that _or not_ is explicitly added to a direct question (cf. _Are you coming *or not*_?) only when the speaker is giving a sort of ultimatum to an addressee that has not satisfactorily replied to a previous question (invitation, etc.) to the same effect. Such pragmatic constraints are important, and would have been relevant if we had been discussing the difference between _Are you coming?_ and _Are you coming or not?_, but the addition of an explicit _or not_ does *not* have that function in a subordinate _whether_-clause.  What it may well have is a disambiguating function, and precisely in cases like this.

I offer you my apologies if the preceding clarifications tell you nothing you did not know. I thought they might be convenient, though, if only because this thread is probably being followed by people who may know less about English syntax than you do and may have been puzzled or upset by what seemed to be a flagrant disagreement between us. As I said in a previous post, I do not think the disagreement is that deep, and I hope this contributes to show why.

S.


----------



## marioamrio

so... what would be your (all) spanish traduction suggestion?


----------



## Forero

Thank you for your thorough explanation, Sibutlasi.

Whether question (3) is still an "indirect yes/no question" is a matter of terminology, but I do see that if (3) has the comma and thus the intonation you suggest, it cannot be properly answered by a simple "yes" (by a "no" maybe, but the exact nature of (3) is probably a little off topic in this thread).

Our disagreement, and neither of us seems to be alone in his respective opinion, relates to this:





Sibutlasi said:


> In the absence of an explicit _or not_, however, there is no way to exclude the possibility that the commas around _or more complex strategies _are due to the application of Right Node Raising to allow_ than clinicians using pure-form therapies _to function as a complement to both instances of _more_ (thereby avoiding redundancy).


I maintain that "or more complex strategies" is essentially parenthetical here and does not alter the meaning of "whether" and that "or not" would be at best redundant in the sentence in question, which belongs with question (2), not with question (3).

I think, for the original poster's sake, we need translations of each of our interpretations into Spanish, but I afraid my Spanish would be either ambiguous or unidiomatic.

Since Spanish is your native language, can you translate both interpretations into reasonably literal but idiomatic Spanish?


----------



## neal41

Sugiero la siguiente respuesta a la petición de marioamrio en #39.  Utiliza como base la aportación de ukimix en #2.  Creo que esta traducción conserva la ambigüedad en la oración en inglés.  No estoy seguro, pero sospecho que traducir las analisis de Forero y Sibutlasi al español no tiene caso, porque sospecho que van mucho más alla de lo que quería marioamrio.

"Schottenbauer y otros sopesan/ponderan/(reflexionan sobre)* si *los clínicos que usan integración de psicoterapias usan más estrategias, o estrategias más complejas, que los clínicos que usan terapias de forma pura."


----------



## Sibutlasi

No estoy seguro acerca de cómo traducir _psychotherapy integration_ ni _pure-form therapies_, la verdad. No sé si el primer término alude a 'la integración de la psicoterapia en (o con) alguna otra terapia' formando una terapia híbrida, o alude a una 'psicoterapia integral' en el sentido de 'una integración de diversas estrategias o técnicas psicoterapéuticas', y por ello, lógicamente, tampoco sé si el término con el que se supone que contrasta, _pure-form therapies_ significa 'terapias no-híbridas' o alguna otra cosa, pero, salvando eso, la traducción de neal41 me parece prudente, pues, en efecto, conserva la posible ambigüedad. Nótese que es, dejando aparte esos términos técnicos opacos para mí, la que yo mismo propuse en mi primera intervención del #8 de este hilo, y cito: "In Spanish, your sentence would, be more or less, _Schottenbauer et al. (2007, p. 233) se preguntan '*si* los clínicos que usan 'psychotherapy integration' utilizan *más* estrategias, *o* <...> estrategias *más* complejas, *que* los que usan 'pure-form therapies'_."

Ahora bien, por las razones que hemos discutido aquí tan largamente, esa traducción conserva en español la misma ambigüedad de la oración inglesa original: si _o estrategias más complejas_ es *sólo un parentético, *una formulación 'mejorada' de la frase *más estrategias *(= un 'afterthought'), yo añadiría a esa traducción un _*o no,*_ ya sea tras _utilizan_ (preferiblemente) o al final de la oración con el fin de disipar la ambigüedad. En ese caso, la interpretación sería la que k-in-sec y Forero ven como significado más natural de la oración inglesa. Y al contrario: si la cuestión que Schottenberger et al. examinan en ese trabajo es *si* A) el primer tipo de psicólogos utilizan mayor número de estrategias *o* B) no utilizan mayor número de estrategias, pero sí utilizan estrategias más sofisticadas, que el segundo grupo de psicólogos, entonces no cabe añadir ese _*o no*_ y la interpretación sería la que yo le asignaba como 'mínima' y por defecto a la oración inglesa (que también podría tener, pero* no* tiene, un *or not* desambiguador). Como el iniciador de este hilo debe saber cuál era la cuestión debatida en ese trabajo de Schottenberger et al., él es quien puede decidir si debe añadir ese _*o no*_ o dejar la oración como propone neal41 en #41 (y, antes, yo mismo en #8).


----------

