Timeline for Why does Steven Pinker say that “can’t” + “any” is just as much of a double-negative as “can’t” + “no” is in “I can’t get no/any satisfaction”?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11, 2021 at 15:38 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @LPH Yes, see my comments there: the currently leading answer is completely off-topic. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 15:34 | comment | added | LPH | @KonradRudolph True, I bring into the matter nothing substantial of my own, merely my faith in a certain grammatical establishment and a personal impression; as you might agree, we can't forever be questioning over and over the same things, but maybe in this particular case a reassessment is called for and I am curious to know what could be its terms. Nevertheless, I'll bring to your notice that such a reassessment is still not the subject of the leading answer on this matter, which is in fact, a blunt denial of Pinker's claim. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 15:22 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @LPH “I don't think Pinker can logically support a theory of the negative import of "any" in today's English” — That isn’t what he’s claiming, but that still doesn’t make prescriptivism relevant to this question. I’ll take your point about CGEL not being prescriptivist; but I’ll note that it still doesn’t fit with Pinker’s claim, and your answer still doesn’t explain the quote, it just flat out claims, without arguing the case, that he’s wrong. Adding a descriptivist reference would make this answer better, but an actual argument is still somewhat lacking, and makes CGEL unconvincing. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 15:18 | comment | added | LPH | @KonradRudolph CGEL : Our primary concern in this book is to describe the grammar of English. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 15:13 | comment | added | LPH | @KonradRudolph I don't think Pinker can logically support a theory of the negative import of "any" in today's English. This assertion of his about "any" being a negative word is for the time being a mere proposition. All that can be said is that it is specialized to negative contexts and questions (essentially). By the way, CGEL (Quirk et al.) is not particularly prescriptive in my opinion. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 14:56 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @CGEL is a prescriptivist reference. Pinker is a linguist, and he does not accept the exclusivity of prescriptivist language definitions as valid. The context of the quote in the question, then, is intentionally descriptivist, to which your answer does not apply. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 14:09 | comment | added | LPH | @KonradRudolph On the contrary, this answer is to the point, albeit treated lightly since references have not been used. This can be read in CGEL, p. 83 § 2.53: "Yes-No questions are also related to the negation through their association with a set of words which we may call NON-ASSERTIVE FORMS: any, anybody, anywhere, yet, etc.. These in turn contrast with corresponding ASSERTIVE FORMS (some, somebody, somewhere, already, etc.) which are associated with positive statements." 5 positive votes bear witness to the inappropriateness of your claim of total irrelevance. | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 13:35 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @DjangoReinhardt Because it doesn’t at all answer this question, and because it’s wrong (except in a very narrow context which is different from the implicit context of the question — and even in that context the answer doesn’t offer a good explanation, it’ just repeats a claim). | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 12:47 | comment | added | Django Reinhardt | I don't understand why this doesn't have more upvotes. "Any" and "some" are clearly two sides of the same coin: "I don't have any water" / "I have some water". | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 17:27 | history | edited | LPH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2021 at 17:24 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | @MaxB I was diverted the first time I tried; context should be given without the need to trace it. From what I remember, Pinker is quite famous in grammatical circles. He's probably making a point: 'double negative' is not well-defined (there are two partly contradictory definitions in common use). Though neither applies to this (second) example. // Double negatives have been well covered on ELU before, and relevant research (at least) should be shown (Nordquist spells out the usual two definitions of 'double negative'). It's pretty basic to see that neither definition applies in this case. | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 17:13 | comment | added | MWB | @EdwinAshworth "I've eventually found the actual relevant piece on the recording" ?! The link in the Q has a time stamp: 6m13s. Are you the one who downvoted and voted to close? | |
| Jan 9, 2021 at 17:04 | history | edited | LPH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2021 at 15:09 | history | edited | LPH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2021 at 14:40 | history | answered | LPH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |