Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language Learners Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for speakers of other languages learning English. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The headlines on the Huffington Post reads

Grandfather Of Australian Boy Pictured Holding 'DECAPITATED' Head In Syria Tells Of Shock

Decapitated? It's used as an adjective here. That seems incorrect usage to me.

How? This way...

decapitate (verb) - Cut off the head of (someone)

The sentence could be - A cruel militant decapitates a soldier. This means he cuts off the head of the soldier.

So, once this brutal procedure is done, the head is separated from the body and then we can use the adjective decapitated. But then, it is the body that takes the adjective and not the head. That's how OxfordDictionaries defines the adjective decapitated in its example:

a decapitated body

So, it is decapitated body and not the head. What do we write a beheaded body or a beheaded head?

I would not have any problem with this headline (hypothetical)

A shocking image of boy holding severed head with decapitated body lying nearby in the pool of blood

To prove my point further, I would cite here something authentic that I as a doctor have read and used.

Let's take the word 'amputate'. It means to remove an organ from the body. It's a surgical procedure to save someone's life. For instance, if you have a diabetic foot, to prevent it spreading further, surgeons amputate that foot and the patient is saved. In this case, after surgery, we have amputated foot and not amputated patient! The latter simply means dead patient! Because you amputate a limb from the patient's body.

In the same way, we may have amputated limbs and not amputated body. If the surgery has been recently performed, we say, "That's the patient of diabetic foot, operated amputated." Yes, looking at the cut foot we say, "That's the foot, amputated." That is because the surgeon did not amputate the patient, but his foot. :)

Again, back to the question, if you cut off the head, the process is decapitating. After decapitating, you have severed head and decapitated body not decapitated head. So, would you confirm that the usage of the word is incorrect. Or am I missing something?

Thanks for reading! :)

share|improve this question
    
You are correct in doubting the usage of decapitated in that sentence. It should be "severed head" since the act of "decapitation" is done to the body and not the head, the head is removed from the body (the head is not removed from the head). The head is de-bodyfied. Somehow that sounds really gruesome though. But, what's your actual question? Whether the usage is correct? –  Vincent Aug 13 at 7:03
    
@Vincent Yes, as I said, it looks incorrect. Do you agree? (It seems you do!) –  Maulik V Aug 13 at 7:16
    
Yes, I agree. Let me make an answer out of my comment. –  Vincent Aug 13 at 7:18
    
@Maulik Another mind-boggling example: disarmed weapons and disarmed soldiers. (It's rather obvious that the two disarmed are different. Could it be the same in our case of decapitated, too?) I also found a handful of "beheaded head" on Google Books, e.g. "... as would forever prevent that hydra from re-growing his beheaded head." –  Damkerng T. Aug 13 at 13:22
2  
"So, kindly confirm, that usage of the word is incorrect." <== Many of us native English speakers naturally use that word in that way. And so, obviously that usage of the word isn't incorrect. –  F.E. Aug 13 at 17:41

5 Answers 5

up vote 0 down vote accepted

As said in the comments, you are correct in doubting the usage of decapitated in that sentence. It should be "severed head" since the act of "decapitation" is done to the body and not the head, the head is removed from the body (the head is not removed from the head). The head is de-bodyfied. Somehow that sounds really gruesome though.

share|improve this answer
    
The head is decorporated. –  Dangph Aug 13 at 7:37
    
That makes it sound even more gruesome. It looks like it already has another usage though: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/decorporation –  Vincent Aug 13 at 7:40
1  
It's somewhat redundant and perhaps not ideal—I wouldn't recommend the phrase myself—but it's common enough in corpora that I'm reluctant to characterize it as an error. –  snailboat Aug 13 at 23:45

'Decapitated head' is actually more common than 'decapitated body' (Google Ngram), but 'body [be] decapitated' is more common than 'head [be] decapitated' (Google Ngram)

I saw headlines like this and didn't think twice about it. (Linguistically, that is; emotionally I am deeply worried about decapitated bodies (or heads).) I think the meaning has extended beyond 'Cut off the head of (someone)' (but not as far an any other body part - there were no hits for 'hand/foot decapitated', 'decapitated hand/foot').

share|improve this answer
    
Should the word mean 'cut off from the body', I would not have any problem with it. It explicitly means 'detached/cut head' and hence, it should not be used with 'head'. –  Maulik V Aug 13 at 12:15
1  
Any number of linguistics websites will tell you that 'etymology is not destiny'; in other words, what a word originally meant, or what its component parts can be understood to mean now, does not fix its meaning for all time. Meanings of words change, including many words we use every day without a second thought (eg next month is literally 'seventh month'). –  SydneyAustraliaESLTeacher Aug 13 at 12:44
    
I really wonder if we'll ever say, amputated patient instead of amputated limbs or for that sake beheaded head –  Maulik V Aug 13 at 12:47
    
According to Google Ngram (which I can't link to) some people do! (not very many, but some) –  SydneyAustraliaESLTeacher Aug 13 at 20:33

There is no reason at all to feel ill at ease with that headline - at least from a linguistic point of view!

Although the head itself can hardly be said to be decapitated, neither is a pair of scissors left-handed. What happens is a common construction called a transferred epithet or hypallage.

Some examples include:

A left-handed pair of scissors: the user is left-handed
Those were happy days: the people living those days were happy
I had a restless night: I was restless, not the night

share|improve this answer

I think the word you are looking for is disembodied. The head without the body is disembodied. The body without the head is decapitated.

share|improve this answer
1  
Disembodied suggests that whatever it is is massless - such as a disembodied voice, for instance. A disembodied head seems infelicitous to me. –  jimsug Aug 13 at 12:10
    
The phrase 'disembodied head' does exist (can't link to Google Ngrams in a comment) but I agree that it seems infelicitous - one does not remove a body from the head; one removes a head from the body. (I suppose you could remove the body part by part, but that's the long way round.) –  SydneyAustraliaESLTeacher Aug 13 at 12:46

Maulik, as stated by Vincent, you are correct to be ill-at-ease with the article title. Vincent is correct. The Latin basis for the word is: de- (expressing removal) + caput, capit- ‘head'. The correct usage should be "severed head" not "decapitated head". The second, which I see all the time in the middle to low-rank media outlets, is grammatically redundant. (This is the same reason why "... he killed him dead..." is incorrect.

Note some of the responses here defending the error with the two most popular defenses: that the error is common in everyday usage and that language changes. However I am willing to bet that the people who use it incorrectly are not thinking in either of those two modes when making the error.

You always hear people state that the purpose of language is communication. However another even more important purpose is as a tool to articulate the world in which we live. The word "decapitation" is one articulation level higher than "severe". When both are used as exact synonyms, language loses articulation and becomes less nuanced. This is an increasing problem with poor state of language education and the propagation of language errors through mass media.

As an ELL continue to use the same level of rigor in your use of the English language. It is wholly appropriate. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for your frank opinion. Though I did not get your last paragraph. :) you may paraphrase it for me to convey the message. –  Maulik V Aug 25 at 6:32
    
This is not an answer to the question but a point of view. –  Laure Aug 25 at 6:39
    
Laure, the answer was clearly stated in the first paragraph of my response. –  Gary Aug 25 at 6:50
    
@Laure in fact, this is an answer with a point of view1 :) –  Maulik V Aug 25 at 8:00
    
@MaulikV Yes, indeed. "The correct usage should be" advising against popular use of the phrase is definitely a personal point of view, and is not neutral. Snailplane's comment I wouldn't recommend the phrase myself is a much better way to say it without moral judgement. In the end it's a matter of personal opinion. And we're back into the same old debate about prescriptive and descriptive. –  Laure Aug 25 at 8:12

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.