<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Post
by fluffyhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:39 am
Riveting stuff! (I mean the quotes, not your "posts" LOL).

-
metal56
- Posts: 3032
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am
Post
by metal56 » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:41 am
fluffyhamster wrote:Riveting stuff! (I mean the quotes, not your "posts" LOL).

When you begin to rivet, I'll throw a party.

-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Post
by fluffyhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:46 am
fluffyhamster wrote:...kind of ties into SJ's 'a certain reluctance' (among arguably "better" writers at least, to use the "dodgy" forms).
Hmm, if I'd said just 'form' there, it would've created a nice ambiguity - are the forms that metal's presenting dodgy, or are writers who avoid the economy on offer not better in a very meaningful sense (that is, "better" writer= dodgy use of the term "better")?

-
metal56
- Posts: 3032
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am
Post
by metal56 » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:50 am
fluffyhamster wrote:fluffyhamster wrote:...kind of ties into SJ's 'a certain reluctance' (among arguably "better" writers at least, to use the "dodgy" forms).
Hmm, if I'd said just 'form' there, it would've created a nice ambiguity - are the forms that metal's presenting dodgy, or are writers who avoid the economy on offer not better in a very meaningful sense (that is, "better" writer= dodgy use of the term "better")?

Party on down!
PSYCHOLOGY RECOGNIZES
PSYCHOLOGY TRIES
PSYCHOLOGY USES
PSYCHOLOGY TAKES
PSYCHOLOGY CAN
PSYCHOLOGY COULD
PSYCHOLOGY DEFINES
PSYCHOLOGY INVESTIGATES
PSYCHOLOGY IGNORES
PSYCHOLOGY PRESENTS
PSYCHOLOGY PROVIDES
PSYCHOLOGY PRODUCES
PSYCHOLOGY RETAINS
PSYCHOLOGY SEEMS
PSYCHOLOGY SETS
PSYCHOLOGY TENDS
PSYCHOLOGY UNDERPLAYS
PSYCHOLOGY SHOWS
PSYCHOLOGY SEES
PSYCHOLOGY RUNS
PSYCHOLOGY REVALUES
PSYCHOLOGY REPEATS
PSYCHOLOGY REMINDS
PSYCHOLOGY REFORMULATES
PSYCHOLOGY PUTS
PSYCHOLOGY PRODUCED
PSYCHOLOGY POINTS
PSYCHOLOGY OPERATES
PSYCHOLOGY NEGLECTS
PSYCHOLOGY JUDGES
PSYCHOLOGY DECLARES
PSYCHOLOGY DEALS
PSYCHOLOGY GIVES
PSYCHOLOGY GETS
PSYCHOLOGY GAINS
PSYCHOLOGY FAVOURS
From the BNC.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Post
by fluffyhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:51 am
metal56 wrote:When you begin to rivet, I'll throw a party.

And when you cease to distract, I'll get on with typing up that Widdowson stuff for Metamorfose!
New research project for metal56: frequency of verb 'rivet' with non-literal meaning, versus frequency of predicative adjective 'riveting'.

-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Post
by fluffyhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:53 am
Another research item: how many of those verbs following psychology might in fact be nouns?!

-
metal56
- Posts: 3032
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am
Post
by metal56 » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:41 am
fluffyhamster wrote:metal56 wrote:When you begin to rivet, I'll throw a party.

And when you cease to distract, I'll get on with typing up that Widdowson stuff for Metamorfose!
New research project for metal56: frequency of verb 'rivet' with non-literal meaning, versus frequency of predicative adjective 'riveting'.

I'll send you the stuff for the new course on
playing with words and enjoying your language at the same time.
It comes with a free packet of shirt
destuffener.
-
CEJ
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:21 pm
Post
by CEJ » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:45 am
Wow, this was a bit bitter, but perhaps worthy of a revival.
I would say there is nothing wrong with the uses cited. Psychology, sociology, economics, etc. simply become terms that mean collectively psychologist, sociologists, economists, etc.
A worse semantic confusion in academics is when academics forget that there should be a distinction between their formal field that studies something and the thing itself. For example, let's look at the area of applied linguistics, where this becomes almost a form of blindness.
So take a field like 'phonology' where everyone assumes that phonology only has a reality within the academic discourse about the thing itself. On the contrary, often that discourse is far from the reality. The phonology we want to understand as language teachers is the phonology our students acquire and build up as they acquire a FL. It's time to give the formal study of things back to those who need them.