"What does psychology study?" Idiomatic. yea or na

<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). :lol: :wink:

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). :lol: :wink:

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

:P

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")? :lol:

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")? :lol:
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.

:P
:D

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'.

:lol:

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?! :o :lol:

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.

:P
:D

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'.

:lol:
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.

Post Reply