Language Hat objects to the sentence “Stephenson, who is sixty, is tall and deprecating.” by Field Malony appearing in the New Yorker. He says it should have been “self-deprecating”. But this seems excessive, since it’s clear from the context that the thing Stephenson deprecates is himself. If an author had written that Stephenson is “tall and charming” we wouldn’t be calling them out because the things Stephenson habitually charms are other people, rather than his pot plants, or his own temporal parts. I don’t see why deprecating should be any different.
(Bonus question for philosophers and linguists. If context is as clear as clear as I say it is, but Stephenson is a pot-plant-deprecator rather than a self-deprecator, is the proposition expressed by Maloney’s utterance true or false?)
Neither true nor false. ‘Depricating’ should be a dyadic predicate, just as ‘tall’ is a monadic one. Saying ‘x is depricating’ as opposed to ‘x is depricating y’ (which, as is pointed out, could include ‘himself’ before or after the predicate, etc.) is similar to saying ‘x is taller.’ Really? Than what? Who? When is?
If you think I’m wrong, you’re probably right.
See, I read it as he’s six foot tall and shrinking. Meaning he used to be taller.
I don’t think it is immediately clear from context - my initial reaction actually was “so who/what is he deprecating?”. Your “charming” comparison doesn’t work for me, because I think reflexivity is probably the issue here.
What would you think of “tall and mocking”, by the way?
I agree that deprecating has to be relational, I’m just denying that you always have to make all the relata explicit. So if I say “Jill went to a local bar” I don’t always need to make explicit whether Jill’s bar was local to her, or to us, or to some other contextually salient location. I was hoping ‘deprecating’ was like ‘local’ in this respect.
‘Mocking’ is a hard case for my view. It’s a rather nice example. Maybe it wasn’t the context that made the deprecatee seem clear to me as much as the fact that ‘deprecating’ is usually (in sentences I hear) used as part of ‘self-deprecating’. If that’s all that was driving it, it probably is wise to insert the ‘self’, just because the meaning might not be clear to hearers who are exposed to slightly different usage patterns.
And the fact that it’s a gerund makes a difference, doesn’t it? The gerund introduces a note of ambiguity. Terry is mocking, deprecating, teasing, sneering, interrogating. Are those adjectives, or are they verbs? If they are verbs, they do need an object, surely. You can run or walk, for instance, without an object, but can you just ‘tease’ in a vacuum? And if they’re adjectives, well, they’re fairly odd ones. One doesn’t normally describe people as ‘mocking’ or ‘deprecating’ and leave it at that - the construction does seem to cry out for the irritated question ‘Mocking what?’
Well, yes, you can tease in a vacuum - if the context is right. As in ‘I’m teasing!’ when someone takes a joke literally. But that’s different. It sounds decidedly peculiar to say ‘Gillian is clever, and tall, and French, and deprecating, and athletic, and witty, and Jewish.’ Could serve as an item for one of those ‘which word doesn’t belong?’ tests.
I get exposed to unadorned “deprecate” quite a bit (standards documents), so perhaps that’s part of it, though with my (strictly amateur) language hat on, I’d observe that reflexitivity is so often grammatically special-cased that it’s perhaps unwise to think of it as just another relatum.
John
Ah, yes…I didn’t pay enough attention to the original post.
“If an author had written that Stephenson is “tall and charming” we wouldn’t be calling them out because the things Stephenson habitually charms are other people, rather than his pot plants, or his own temporal parts. I don’t see why deprecating should be any different.”
Because it is indeed a reflexive, that’s why, whereas ‘charming’ isn’t. One doesn’t say X is self-charming, and one does say X is charming. All right two reasons (the Inquistion relies on two things: fear, surprise, and - the Inquistion relies on three things, etc). Reflexiveness (no, not relfexivity, I refuse) and habit or familiarity. Charming is familiar and customary (and custom plays a considerable role in language, to put it mildly) and deprecating is not, and charming is not reflexive and deprecating is. As is self-denying, and self-aggrandizing, and self-promoting. The object is simply attached to the verb (and moved in front of it). Without ‘self’ the absence of an object looks highly peculiar in certain cases - and not others. (Charming makes my gerund point worthless though.)
I see your reasoning, but I don’t think this is a case where logic is much help. The fact is that “charming,” by itself, is a commonly used adjective; we all know what it means. “Deprecating” is not; minus the “self-” it carries no clear implication. This may have to do with the fact that “deprecate” is a transitive verb; we can’t say “John deprecates,” we have to say “John deprecates the new trend” (or whatever). It would seem to make sense that “deprecating” would also need a clear (expressed) object. No?
Well except that that would apply to ‘charming’ too, and it doesn’t - because by long habit, ‘charming’ has become a familiar adjective that doesn’t need an object or a reflexive pronoun. But ‘deprecating’ decidedly has not. So I say it’s spinach and I say the hell with it.
Does it help to note that in other latin-derived languages (eg french) one would have to add in the reflexive if it were to mean self-deprecating? I can well imagine someone verbally describing one as being deprecating, but not writing it. It does seem though that normally one would put it not in the gerand but the adjective, “he’s hateful,” not “he’s hating.” So, if it really is a gerand, not a reflexive verb, and should be referring to a prepositional phrase, it would have been more correct (because of the dropped prep. phrase) to use deprecatory or deprecative. Though I’ll admit it does make for a peculiar sentance. And it still doesn’t solve the question of what was the intended usage, so I think Malony was right, the sentance is fundamentally ambiguous.
I found the original sentence irritating, and I’m not sure why. I guess that because it uses ‘deprecate’ as an intransitive verb, it makes me suspect that the writer uses the word without understanding it — perhaps they’ve heard it only as part of the phrase “self-deprecating” and thought the “self-” was somehow redundant. However, if that’s the case, I have very little hope of puzzling out their actual meaning, because while I know (or suspect) that they aren’t familiar with the meaning of the word as I use it, they surely have some other meaning in mind for it, perhaps one they’ve gathered from contexts in which other people use it. Clearly, if they haven’t even gathered that it’s a transitive verb, they’ve only heard it a few times, and so they could have inferred almost any meaning at all for it. So I have to read the rest of the article I find that sentence in at about half-speed, trying to guess what meaning the author thinks each two-or-more-syllable word is supposed to have.
I don’t have the same problem with “charming” or “mocking”; if I say that John is mocking, I mean that John tends to mock (anything, or nothing, or most things), and if I say John is charming, then I mean John tends to charm (and the usual object of “charm” is “people”, although his charming could plausibly extend to animals as well.) If someone says, “Stephenson is deprecating,” does that mean he tends to deprecate things? Maybe — but it’s close to the opposite of the meaning Brian inferred, which is that he tends to deprecate himself. It seems almost as plausible that Stephenson could tend to deprecate (unspecified) things as that he could tend to mock things. It’s clearly wrong in context; the article also describes Stephenson as “amiable”, and the quotes the reporter ascribes to him deprecate almost nothing, including himself. (He does deprecate the constant suggestions of new names for slime molds, but it sounds like almost anyone would.) This supports my suspicion that the reporter has an entirely different meaning in mind for “deprecate” than I do, but I can find no clue in the article as to what the word might mean to him.
As background, I usually see “deprecate” used in standards documents and man pages, where its object is usually some language feature, API, or protocol element. (Given the subject of this post, I feel obliged to point out that the meanings of the words “language” and “protocol” in this sentence differ subtly from their normal English meanings, and actually, so does “deprecate” in standards documents. Maybe my irritation with people speaking jargon dialects other than my own is just a sort of ethnocentrism?)
BTW, the original complaint is at http://www.languagehat.com/archives/000947.php — and the original article at http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?031103ta_talk_maloney — hope this helps. (Sorry for the obnoxious em dashes.)
I think Ophelia is right that this is a matter of how ingrained habits are on the particular question. It’s perfectly fine to describe someone as loving, or caring, or boring, without specifying who they habitually love or care for or bore. So there’s no rule that whenever a gerund is generated from a transitive verb the object must be made explicit.
It is worth noting however (as has been pointed out above) that it’s hard to find cases where the default object is the self. One would not normally describe a narcissist as loving.
I think there are a couple of issues here: the growing linguistic separation between the reflexive and non-reflexive forms of ‘to deprecate [oneself]’; and the relative unfamiliarity of ‘deprecating’ in an adjectival form. So you could say ‘Mr X. is tall and caring’, because ‘He is caring’ is no longer read as subject-copula-presenttenseverb but rather subject-copula-adjective. But ‘is… deprecating’ has yet to elide from verbishness to adjectiveness. Um.
To me it’s simpler than that. “Self-deprecating” is the English idiom, and the writer who uses “deprecating” to mean “self-deprecating” doesn’t know how to write English. But the real problem is, the New Yorker doesn’t have an editor.
Where’s a linguist when you need one?
I’m a linguist, and snarl has it exactly right. It’s usage, not logic, that decides whether something is a word; “self-deprecating” is, and “deprecating” (tout court) isn’t — meaning that, unlike “charming” et al, it isn’t an adjective. (Actually, it’s hard to think of a sentence in which it would be normal even as a verbal form; we say “X deprecates Y,” not “X is deprecating Y.”)
A number of people seem to be making the point that the meaning is obvious and it’s therefore a matter of familiarity or undefined rule intuitions that causes the ‘problem’.
I disagree. When I first read the sentence, I actually assumed it to mean that Stephenson routinely deprecates other people. Synonymous with “Stephenson, who is sixty, is tall and scathing.” In other words, I was mapping directly from ‘tall and charming’. I found it a cool usage of deprecate in that context.
I agree with Sidereal.
In fact, it strikes me as completely wrong to read this as [self-]deprecating, with the “self” left unspoken but understood. “Self-deprecating” is one of those fossilized words that is no longer used except in this one formulation - think of the words that exist only as negatives, such as uncouth or unkempt.
So, my assumption on reading this passage was that Malony was playing a trick by pretending that “deprecate” still existed as a normal, productive word. This is done so often in the case of “uncouth” that the half-joking “couth” has almost re-entered the language.
But “deprecate” does still exist as a normal, productive word. Computer programmers use it all the time: “The current SMTP standard deprecates the SEND command,” which means that it says you shouldn’t use the SEND command. (I don’t remember if the quoted statement is factually true.)
But specialized argot used by computer programmers (or any other technical subset of the population) is not “normal” usage. I still don’t “access” the milk out of the fridge, and I don’t “interface” with people, though I realize others do. So, the computer programming usage for the word ‘deprecate’ is not necessarily the same as the general population’s. And then, the dispute is over the word ‘deprecating’ where one would’ expect ‘self-deprecating,’ not the use of the verb ‘deprecate’ in general. One can certainly deprecate things other than self - that’s not in dispute. (I don’t think.)
If you want to waste a bunch more time, I have calculated that the word “condone” is used somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times more often as a negative verb than as a positive one. Almost no condoning ever gets done. (Some may suspect my methodology.) I have it up on my front page.
I would agree with Rob. My initial impression was he is getting shorter, smaller or shrinking in size as time passes.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review