can we just take A Moment to mention that when asked about deadpool’s sexuality, tim miller wasn’t vague, he didn’t walk on eggshells around the subject he literally said “pansexual. i want that quoted, pansexual deadpool” he was explicit and upfront about it and this kind of representation is so important, deadpool is a huge film and to have him explicitly state that the main character is pansexual is amazing. its kind of disappointing that pansexual characters are so non-existent that im getting this excited, but this is something and it still makes me so happy. thank you tim miller thank you ryan reynolds thank you wade wilson im so happy
The difference between epistemic & deontic, necessity & possibility, in an overlapping diagram
This is a handy reference diagram I made way back in grad school for remembering the difference between epistemic necessity, deontic possibility, and other basic types of modality, and I’ve finally put it online.
Here’s how it works:
In linguistics, modals (aka modal verbs, modal auxiliaries) refer to words like can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might, must which indicate likelihood, permission, obligation, and ability. The concept of modality includes both modal auxiliaries as well as longer constructions, like ought, have to, be obliged to, be able to, be capable of, it’s possible that, it’s necessary for __ to, it’s obligatory to, it’s permissible that, possibly, necessarily, maybe, perhaps, and so on.
In the diagram, the blue areas are epistemic modality (according to evidence, reasoning, or beliefs), the red areas are deontic modality (according to a set of rules or desires), the dark areas are necessity (in all possible worlds), the light areas are possibility (in at least one possible world). Every area has both a colour (blue/red) and a shade (light/dark) because modality is made up of a modal base (according to what, on the basis of what) and a modal force (how strong is the result).
Here are some examples for each of the regions.
Dark blue is epistemic necessity
“It must be raining outside (I can hear the rain).” In all worlds consistent with my beliefs, it is raining outside.
“When you add vinegar to baking soda, it should fizz.” In all worlds consistent with my reasoning about chemical properties, vinegar added to baking soda fizzes.
Light blue is epistemic possibility
“It may be raining outside (I heard that it was going to rain today)” In at least one world consistent with my beliefs, it is raining outside.
“The doctor has said, they can go to the bathroom.” In at least one world consistent with the doctor’s assessment of their physical capabilities, they go to the bathroom.
Dark red is deontic necessity
“It must rain this week (in order for the crops not to spoil)” In all worlds consistent with my desires, it rains this week.
“You should drive under the speed limit.” In all worlds consistent with the rules for proper driving, you drive under the speed limit.
Light red is deontic possibility
“It may rain this week (as far as I’m concerned, I’m not planning any activities that would be spoiled by the rain so I don’t care).” In at least one world consistent with my desires, it rains this week.
“The teacher has said, they can go to the bathroom.” In at least one world consistent with the teacher’s rules for the classroom, they go to the bathroom.
Notice that English is generally good at making distinctions between necessity and possibility but bad at making distinctions between epistemic and deontic, which must be cleared up via context. Some languages do make straightforward lexical distinctions between various flavours of modality like epistemic and deontic.
Also note that more advanced theories of modality distinguish between more types of modality than epistemic and deontic (such as circumstantial, dynamic, logical, metaphysical, ability, teleological, bouletic, etc) but this is a basic introduction to making these distinctions at all, so I’m not going to get into them here. If you want to expand the diagram yourself, however, you could assign these other types of modality other colours, as long as you give them each two shades. (And in case anyone reading this already knows a lot about modality, I’d also like to point out that the Wikipedia article on linguistic modality is in dire need of improvement.)
17 things (other than grammar) linguists know about language. And so should you. #lingchat
Languages are not a simple matter of grammar. Any language policy must consider what is known about language from the fields of pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and cognitive linguistics. These are the key aspects of what we know about language collected from across many fields of linguistic inquiry:
Every sentence communicates much more than just its basic content (propositional meaning). We also communicate our desires and beliefs (e.g. “It’s cold here” may communicate, “Close the window” and “John denied that he cheats on his taxes” communicates that somebody accused John of cheating on his taxes. Similarly choosing a particular form of speech, like slang or jargon, communicates belonging to a community of practice.)
The understanding of any utterance is always dependent on a complex network of knowledge about language, about the world, as well as about the context of the utterance. “China denied involvement.” requires the understanding of the context in which countries operate, as well as metonymy, as well as the grammar and vocabulary. Consider the knowledge we need to possess to interpret “In 1939, the world exploded.” vs. “In Star Wars, a world exploded.”
There is no such thing as purely literal language. All language is to some degree figurative. “Between 3 and 4pm.”, “Out of sight”, “In deep trouble”, “An argument flared up”, “Deliver a service”, “You are my rock”, “Access for all” are all figurative to different degrees.
We all speak more than one variety of our language: formal/informal, school/friends/family, written/spoken, etc. Each of these variety has its own code. For instance, “she wanted to learn” vs. “her desire to learn” demonstrates a common difference between spoken and written English where written English often uses clauses built around nouns.
We constantly switch between different codes (sometimes even within a single utterance). Think about what is going on in a sentence like “The Joe said unto Karen.”
Bilingualism is the norm in language knowledge, not the exception. About half the world’s population regularly speaks more than one language but everybody is “bi-lingual” in the sense that they deal with multiple codes in their language. They may seem like very close but for a child without much familial academic background, entering school and learning to read may feel very much like a foreign language and they often need the same sort of support learners of second languages need.
The “standard” or “correct” English is just one of the many dialects, not English itself. It is not something other dialects diverge from, it is their linguistic equal.
The difference between a language and a dialect is just as much political as linguistic. An old joke in linguistics goes: “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.” There is no standard measure or universal definition of one language as opposed to another.
Language prescription and requirements of language purity (incl. simple language) are as much political statements as linguistic or cognitive ones. All language use is related to power relationships. Language purists often just parrot half-remembered rules from school and personal peeves.
Simplified languages develop their own complexities if used by a real community through a process known as creolization. (This process is well described for pidgins but not as well for artificial languages.)
All languages are full of redundancy, polysemy and homonymy. It is the context and our knowledge of what is to be expected that makes it easy to figure out the right meaning. Speakers always use context, expectation and all kinds of inference to figure out the intended meaning.
Language speakers have many tools to figure out what a statement is about other than just listening or reading carefully. In a dialogue, people use something called ‘conversation repair’, they raise their eye-brows, ask 'Sorry’, etc. With written texts, they use reference materials, highlight, bookmark, look things up in an index, etc. All of these strategies are a part of their language competence.
There is no straightforward relationship between grammatical features and language obfuscation or lack of clarity (e.g. It is just as easy to hide things using active as passive voice or any Subject-Verb-Object sentence as Object-Subject-Verb).
It is difficult to call any one feature of a language universally simple (for instance, SVO word order or no morphology) because many other languages use what we call complex as the default without any increase in difficulty for the native speakers (e.g. use of verb prefixes/particles in English and German)
Language is not really organized into sentences but into texts. Texts have internal organization to hang together formally (John likes coffee. He likes it a lot.) and semantically (As I said about John. He likes coffee.) Texts also relate to external contexts (cross reference) and their situations. This relationship is both implicit and explicit in the text. The shorter the text, the more context it needs for interpretation. For instance, if all we see is “He likes it.” written on a piece of paper, we do not have enough context to interpret the meaning.
Language is not used uniformly. Some parts of language are used more frequently than others. But this is not enough to understand frequency. Some parts of language are used more frequently together than others. The frequent coocurrence of some words with other words is called “collocation”. This means that when we say “bread and …”, we can predict that the next word will be “butter”. You can check this with a linguistic tool like a corpus, or even by using Google’s predictions in the search. Some words are so strongly collocated with other words that their meaning is “tinged” by those other words (this is called semantic prosody). For example, “set in” has a negative connotation because of its collocation with “rot”.
All language is idiomatic to some degree. You cannot determine the meaning of all sentences just by understanding the meanings of all their component parts and the rules for putting them together. And vice versa, you cannot just take all the words and rules in a language, apply them and get meaningful sentences. Consider “I will not put the picture up with John.” and “I will not put up the picture with John.” and “I will not put up John.” and “I will not put up with John.”
If adverbs were sentient, we might pity them. Sometimes, they are treated as nothing more than adjectives crudely tarted up with some minor ornamental morphology. At other times, they are treated as the ‘wastebasket category’, because ‘adverb’ is what you call a word when you’ve run out of other names to call it. All sorts of stray mystery particles have been described as adverbs, for the most tenuous of reasons or for no particular reason at all. Worse still, the term is often taken to include not just a motley assortment of scarcely- related lexical riffraff, but whole phrases without regard to their syntactic category. Loiter around the peripheries of a clause for too long, and you too might be accused of being an adverb. To be mistreated unjustly is bad. It’s worse when it’s precisely what you deserve.
honestly how can you sit there, in this fragile realm of existence, occupying space and honestly not think that folie à deux is one the best albums of all time?? how can you lie to yourself like that how can you honestly how can you lie to god like this i dont understand folie is so good i dont
I don't like judge other people's views and even though I don't agree with you I think everyone is entailed to their own opinion. I just find that saying abortion is 'slaughtering children' is plain wrong, mean and just too extreme
im so fuckign bitter about the fact that anyone with any kind of platform to talk about mental illness only ever talks about depression and anxiety like im so fucking bitter. where are the conversations about people with psychosis or ocd or schizophrenia or personality disorders??? all i want is a tiny slither of representation and comfort for a group of people who have been demonised and vilanised and isolated for so fucking long