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

[metal56]

Imagine if Ayn Rand had done a classroom drill (if you can):


AR: "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence.

What..................?"

Class: "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence"

So it never happened but what would she have said at that point?

Exactly.

[metal56]

Is it an example of metonymy?

No.

What we are dealing with here is an interesting phenomenum. That of what I will call "defective collocations".

Just a point...

<1 - 18 of about 45 English pages for "That of what I will call" >

To a lesser extent I believe this happens in the phrase 'Philosophy studies'. When we access the part of the language engine that houses 'study' we come across the limitation that we study Philosophy, philosophy doesn't study us.

Do books read?

This book reads well.

[metal56]

Is it just "personification"? That was my first reaction, until someone somewhere else suggested "metonymy".

Or maybe a shortening os such as:

The discipline of psychology studies...
The practice of psychology studies...
The application of psychology studies...

I have to say that all this doubt about such as "what does psychology study?", and similar, has me scratching my head. The form sounds absolutely correct to me.

[metal56]

More examples from quality writers:

"For instance, what does psychoanalysis study? It is usually said that it studies "the unconscious", just like that. The pertinence of science in the positivist mode will..."

From page 8 of:


Lacan's Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis

Author(s) Robert Harari
Publisher Other Press, LLC
Publication Date Sep 7, 2004
Subject Psychology
Format Paperback

.............

"What does visual culture study?"

From page 107 of:

Title The Visual Culture Reader
Editor(s) Nicholas Mirzoeff
Publisher Routledge (UK)

..........

"But if we now put the Socratic-style question, and ask: ‘But what does science itself study?,” we shall get the answer: “reality.” or perhaps more modestly, ..."

From page 176 of:

Title Philosophy and Mystification
Author(s) Guy Robinson
Publisher Routledge (UK)

[metal56]

And this:

<Metal, take a look at number 4 (from the lwb):

"psy·chol·o·gy Pronunciation Key (s-kl-j)
n. pl. psy·chol·o·gies

1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.
2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, group, or activity: the psychology of war.
3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer when trying to make the point.
4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the functions of the body.">

[metal56]

New one.

"psychology considers..."

Psychology considers thought merely as an act of the soul. Thus if we take a judgment, such as e.g., "The three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles," Psychology considers it, merely in so far as it is a form of mental activity. Logic on the other hand, examines the way in which this mental act expresses the objective truth with which it deals; and if necessary, asks whether it follows legitimately from the grounds on which it is based.

http://sow.colloquium.co.uk/~barrett/logic3.htm

[metal56]

"The object of Psychology is the human soul and all its activities. It investigates the nature and operations of intellect, will, imagination, sense. Thus its object is far wider than that of Logic, which is concerned with the intellect alone. And even in regard to the intellect, the two sciences consider it under different aspects. Psychology considers thought merely as an act of the soul. Thus if we take a judgment, such as e.g., "The three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles," Psychology considers it, merely in so far as it is a form of mental activity. Logic on the other hand, examines the way in which this mental act expresses the objective truth with which it deals; and if necessary, asks whether it follows legitimately from the grounds on which it is based. Moreover, Logic, as a regulative science, seeks to prescribe rules as to how we ought to think. With this Psychology has nothing to do: it only asks, "What as a matter of fact is the nature of the mind's activity?"

In all of those I hear an omitted" The application of...", or similar.

"The applicaton of Logic seeks to...".

[Stephen Jones]

Do books read?

Perhaps the question should be "does metal56 read" since he is spending so much time cutting and pasting from the web to demolish a strawman of his own making.

Nobody is denying the correctness of the affirmative forms.The question is about the interrogative forms. According to your posts, two people on another forum had doubts about the correctness of the interrogative, and the form causes a double take on a couple of readers of this forum. There is also the fact that Search Engine hits appear to reveal that the interrogative form is about two hundred times less common than the affirmative form. The third person interrogative is much less common on the web than the affirmative, but not to that extent. So although the form may seem fine to you, it doesn't to some other people.

I'm not saying "what does philosophy study?" is incorrect, any more than the question "how does that book read?", or "we went it alone is". However I suspect there is a certain reluctance to use all three forms, and feel the matter is worth looking into.

[metal56]

Do books read?

Perhaps the question should be "does metal56 read" since he is spending so much time cutting and pasting from the web to demolish a strawman of his own making.

Are you getting upset, Stevie? Tut, tut, now.

Nobody is denying the correctness of the affirmative forms.

They are on other fora.

The question is about the interrogative forms. According to your posts, two people on another forum had doubts about the correctness of the interrogative, and the form causes a double take on a couple of readers of this forum.

As does "This book reads well" on numerous other fora.

There is also the fact that Search Engine hits appear to reveal that the interrogative form is about two hundred times less common than the affirmative form. The third person interrogative is much less common on the web than the affirmative, but not to that extent.

Is that a fact? Where did you get that information from?

So although the form may seem fine to you, it doesn't to some other people.

The why, is still in question. Maybe they just hang around in different circles.

I'm not saying "what does philosophy study?" is incorrect, any more than the question "how does that book read?", or "we went it alone is". However I suspect there is a certain reluctance to use all three forms, and feel the matter is worth looking into.

It is worth looking into. Let's continue looking.

[fluffyhamster]

Perhaps 'What does the study of whatever subject involve?', or 'Subject X is concerned with this and that and the other' would be more elegant (certainly less hurried) ways of putting things. I'm not saying that guys who write like that aren't "quality" writers, but they probably do rather feel (even if it is subconscious) that they are at that moment in their writing just doling out the basics (i.e. definitions) before getting onto the more involving stuff (for them, and probably also the reader)...kind of ties into SJ's 'a certain reluctance' (among arguably "better" writers at least, to use the "dodgy" forms).

[Stephen Jones]

Dear metal56

If people on other forums are disputing a usage, then post there. No one is here so don't waste space.

I gave you the Google figures before, between 0-6 for the interrogative forms and between 424-726 for the affirmative depending on the discipline. The problem is deciding how much of this discrepancy is simply because nobody needs to use the particular lexeme in the interrogative and how much is because it appears awkward.

[metal56]

Dear metal56

If people on other forums are disputing a usage, then post there. No one is here so don't waste space.

You are into that "some of us own this site" thing again.

Deal with the grammar and semantics, not figures. What's the difference here?

"What does psychology study?"

"What do hardware stores sell?"

"What do supermarkets sell?"

[metal56]

Perhaps 'What does the study of whatever subject involve?', or 'Subject X is concerned with this and that and the other' would be more elegant (certainly less hurried) ways of putting things. I'm not saying that guys who write like that aren't "quality" writers, but they probably do rather feel (even if it is subconscious) that they are at that moment in their writing just doling out the basics (i.e. definitions) before getting onto the more involving stuff (for them, and probably also the reader)...kind of ties into SJ's 'a certain reluctance' (among arguably "better" writers at least, to use the "dodgy" forms).

Below, which would you say show less hurried or more elegant way of putting things?

1.

a) The bakery around the corner sells sliced bread.
b) The clerks at the bakery around the corner
sell sliced bread.

2.

a) The Navy bought 25 F-37s from Company X this year.
b.)Purchasing agents for the Navy bought 25 F-37s
from salesmen from Company X this year.

3.

a)The Dodgers scored two runs in the ninth inning.
b) Players on the Dodgers team scored two runs
in the ninth inning.

4.

a) The accounting department will file a report on the 15th.
b) Some accountant from the accounting department will
file a report on the 15th.

[fluffyhamster]

None of those examples are from academic prose, though.

[metal56]

None of those examples are from academic prose, though.

These are:

1 CMR correct gender imbalances among psychologists? Even when psychology recognizes gender differences between psychologists, it

2 CMR subjects more than it does among psychologists. Psychology recognizes the importance of representing women and men

3 CMR simplifications take for different social relations. Western psychology recognizes that class differences may have effects on

4 CMR a form a computer can deal with. Although psychology recognizes the resultant uncertainties in computer-dependent methods, it

5 CMR have inhibited their own effects on psychology. Feminist psychology recognizes the importance of theory more than most other

2 CMR (Sherif 1977: 199) Like other sciences, psychology defines itself by its object. In this case,

Where egalitarian feminist psychology investigates lesbians specifically

Physiological psychology presents a range of major methodological challenges

..............................