The Lexicographer's Rules

My latest column in the Malaysia Star has been posted. The column is based on a radio essay that I wrote in June 2007 but never aired. In short, I’m endorsing the use of quotation marks for emphasis. John McWhorter more or less agrees in a column he published in the New York Sun in August 2007.

...

There’s a chain of restaurants in the United States called White Castle that sells greasy, yummy, little, oniony hamburgers in paper boxes.

On those boxes is printed the slogan Buy ‘em by the “sack.” The double quote marks around “sack” are theirs, not mine. They are what is called “scare quotes.”

Scare quotes are usually found around very short phrases or around single words in order to call attention to those words in a negative way. They aren’t used to quote someone, they’re used to call into question whatever words are found within them. They instil doubt.

For example, in the movie Citizen Kane, scare quotes appear on the screen in a screaming newspaper headline, Candidate Kane Caught in Love Nest with “Singer.” Singer is in scare quotes as a way of suggesting that Kane’s sweetie, Susan Alexander, was little more than a floozy (a woman of loose morals) and not much of a singer.

White Castle, it turns out, has been using quotes around “sack” since at least the ’50s and probably longer. Because of the way the company uses them, I prefer to call them something other than scare quotes.

For one thing, they’re not really calling the word “sack” into question. There’s no scaring to be done, no fear to be instilled, no doubt to be sown. I suppose there are cheap laughs to be had by reading Buy ‘em by the “sack” as if the “sack” were only pretending to be a sack but is instead something else, like a tugboat or a banana. That’s the kind of intentional misunderstanding you have to make in order to think that those quotes around “sack” shouldn’t be there.

They belong there because the company is calling attention to the word. “Sack”, perhaps, wasn’t a word that everyone would use. Some might prefer “bag”, since “sack” historically has been much less used in some parts of the United States to refer to the folded paper container your purchases are packed into at the grocery store.

So if they’re not scare quotes around “sack”, what are they?

I suggest the term shout quotes. And I suggest that the use of quotations for emphasis be condoned for casual use by all language authorities: hired, self-appointed, or otherwise.

There’s a weblog called the “Blog of Unnecessary Quotation Marks” and on the photo-sharing website Flickr, there’s a fantastic picture pool called “quote abuse.” Both mock the use of quotes used to emphasise or draw attention to a word.

But as examples on both sites show, there are proper, natural, widely understood rules behind using shout quotes, even if they’re taught in no grammar or style book that I can find.

They’re appropriate when you have no other easy way to indicate emphasis. They’re appropriate when used, for example, in casual sign-making. They’re appropriate when bolding or underlining is not possible. They’re appropriate when used by people who don’t do typesetting for a living.

One picture shows a handwritten sign that says, “Sorry”, but there will be no pumpkin soup served today!

Well, for lame laughs, we could assume those are scare quotes and that the writer meant they weren’t really sorry. But that’s an uncharitable reading. The only way you could truthfully assume that the sorry was insincere would be to also assume that the sign-writer was incapable of even the simplest lie about being sorry. Clearly, with the shout quotes, the sign-writer meant that “sorry” was to be emphasised. Perhaps the pumpkin soup is extraordinary and they really were sorry it was not being served.

The intentional misreading of the shout quotes as scare quotes does grow rather thin. The sign that says We Love “Sushi” makes one commenter on Flickr wonder whether the sign-maker meant “cat” in place of “sushi.” See, if “sushi” is in quotes it must mean that the word is dubious, right? Maybe they’re selling cat-meat instead of fish?

No! They just wanted to emphasise the word “sushi.” Very simple. You have to go out of your way to get it wrong.

A truck door that says our drivers are “safe” drivers could make you wonder whether that company does indeed define “safe” differently from everyone else—besides leaving you wondering who they are trying to convince, when safe-driving behaviour alone should do the trick.

But of course, all they meant to do was to emphasise the word “safe”, in much the same way that in sign after sign, “do not” or “please” are put inside shout quotes that emphasise the strongest sentiments of their authors.

I endorse the use of quotation marks for emphasis, even in extreme cases. One example I collected is of a sign in a bar advertising half-off bottles of beer during happy hours. There are four shout quotes, one in each corner, decorating the page as much as they are enclosing the text, but all of them emphasising the discount.

That perfect example of using quotes for emphasis is something I can drink to.

I couldn’t disagree more!  There are any number of symbols that can be used as brackets for emphasis...bracketing with asterisks, for example, is quite commonly understood as a substitute for bold text.  Why excuse and encourage the use a character for emphasis when that character already has a specifically understood (and directly contradictory) meaning when used in an identical fashion?

I don’t consider myself anything close to a prescriptivist, but I think you’re going too far, here…

“Boooooooo”

I have to disagree here as well. Just because you can figure out what they mean pretty easily, it doesn’t mean that it should be encouraged.

I was at a summer camp when I was a kid, and they had a sign that was “[something] Cafe’”. It was obvious to me that the apostrophe following the “e” was intended as a substitute for an acute accent--perhaps whatever method they used to create the sign did not allow for “é"--but that didn’t make it any less tacky. Just the fact that I remember that years and years later is a testament to how traumatic it was. :)

In this situation, they could have just left it off and people would still know what the word was. In the examples in the column, a simple use of CAPS would suffice, or just use nothing at all. It’s not like the message would be lost without that little bit of emphasis.

“......widely understood rules behind using shout quotes, even if they’re taught in no grammar or style book that I can find.”

Isn’t this use of the negative rather clunky? How can the rules be “taught in no grammar or style book”? Surely the correct usage is “not taught in any grammar or style book”.

“See, if “sushi” is in quotes it must mean that the word is dubious, right? Maybe they’re selling cat-meat instead of fish? / No! They just wanted to emphasise the word “sushi.” .... A truck door that says our drivers are “safe” drivers could make you wonder whether that company does indeed define “safe” differently from everyone else....”

Another disagreement with your pov. The fact of the matter is that there already exist in English a lot of really nifty ways to emphasize, if that’s what you want to do: italics, underlining, exclamation points, all caps, etc.

The overuse of scare quotes indicates a lack of familiarity with how English works, not some advanced stylistic ability.

If someone decides, out of ignorance, that the best way to indicate a question is to put a percent sign at the end of the phrase, are we going to start considering that a great innovation in English grammar as well%

Surely the correct usage is “not taught in any grammar or style book”.

That’s fine, but my wording was grammatical and correct as well.

Wendell and Skwid, the existence of other forms of emphasis doesn’t preclude the use of another one.

The overuse of scare quotes indicates a lack of familiarity with how English works, not some advanced stylistic ability.

That’s untrue. The use of shout quotes has nothing to do with how English works. It is only a matter of style. English permits the use of quote marks in this way but some folks choose to believe that the people who do use shout quotes are stupid or uneducated. That’s a matter of classicism, not English grammar or linguistics.

Court, your example of “cafe” is unrelated to what I am talking about here. I would agree that using an apostrophe after an E when it should be an E with an accent aigue is tacky, but I can appreciate all the ways outside of one’s control in which someone could end up with the apostrophe and not the accent

“English permits the use of quote marks in this way.” No, it doesn’t. Big clue: “[T]hey’re taught in no grammar or style book that I can find.”

I don’t think people who use scare quotes, cf people who say “ain’t,” “y’all,” or “he dead,” are (necessarily) stupid or uneducated. I myself am a y’all-er, and nobody here in Texas thinks less of me for it. But the sad fact is, people who use such expressions outside of their own linguistic circle will appear stupid to others.

If a signmaker uses quotes to indicate emphasis, that’s fine by me—if that’s in fact what the intended audience is taking away. But in Standard English, quotes are used for other things, and emphasis is indicated in other ways. So why use quotes for emphasis when (a) your meaning may not be clear and (b) many people will think you’re an idiot?

Copyeditor, what makes you think that all of English is covered in grammar books or style books? That’s ridiculous. Besides which, style guides are about what a person or institution chooses to do, within the confines of a language and by choosing from an array of several different, acceptable ways of doing the same thing.

So why use quotes for emphasis when (a) your meaning may not be clear and (b) many people will think you’re an idiot?

Even better, why give in to the tight-spinctered snobs just because they prefer to look down their noses and sneer?

Sorry, Grant, but you’re way off-base here.  By your logic, “there” is interchangeable with “their” and “they’re,” “it’s” with “its,” “your” with “you’re,” “except” with “accept,” “effect” with “affect,” etc.

Just because it’s “easy enough” for someone else to figure out what someone is trying to say doesn’t make their wretched grammar correct.  Wrong is wrong, whether it’s become common usage or not.

And “allowance for personal style” does not equate to redefining something with already well-understood meaning.  If you want to be the next e.e. cummings, do it on your own time.

Even better, why give in to the tight-spinctered snobs just because they prefer to look down their noses and sneer?

Why resort to name-calling when people have clearly and effectively argued against your point?

It hardly seems to be taking the so called “high road” like you probably should.

The thing is, what you’re promoting is point blank bad grammar. We’re all prone to mistakes, but quotes are for quoting things or calling into question their meaning. They are not for emphasis. I repeat NOT for emphasis.

As previously mentioned there are a whole slew of other ways in which someone can emphasize a word, Capslock (which is also cruise control for cool), bold, and italics are just a few.

I’d far prefer a trucking company said that “our drivers are SAFE!!!!” rather than “our drivers are “safe"”, even if the former is far more obnoxious. At least then, I know for sure what they mean.

My opinion is that the same punctuation should not be used for two different meanings. It doesn’t make sense to me to use quotation marks to both emphasize truth and call into doubt.

After reading the post about using shout quotes, I said aloud, “This article is the “best” I’ve ever read.”

I have to say, that I’m going to have to side with the disagreers here.

I think quotes have a very clear usage defined for them, and attempting to use them for a different meaning is only asking for trouble.  It’s not that I think there’s anything inherently wrong about using “scare” quotes, but it’s, like Skiwd said, contradictory to the defined use.

For some reason, seeing a well-written defense of this kind of nonsense, apparently deliberated over and carefully constructed, is far more repulsive to me than the usual “what do u care, thsi isn’t engilsh class” justification.

Also:

“They’re appropriate when you have no other easy way to indicate emphasis. They’re appropriate when used, for example, in casual sign-making. They’re appropriate when bolding or underlining is not possible.”

What precisely are these situations where you can’t use bold, italics, or underline?  If you’re talking about hand-lettering, then the effort required to bold text or to make italics look good is probably not worth it, but underlining?

Seems like underlining would do the same job & be grammatically correct.  Just saying.

It depends on your goals. If you want to communicate and persuade (as in advertising, the arena of most of the examples in your post), it helps to use concepts that your audience will understand. If your main purpose is to prove that you don’t kowtow to anybody, I grant that idiosyncratic punctuation is one way to do it. As a form of rebellion it seems kind of lame, but hey, fight the power.

Even better, why give in to the tight-spinctered snobs just because they prefer to look down their noses and sneer?

Oh come now. It’s one thing for a person to sound uneducated, and quite another for the same said person to claim any sort of mastery of the English language. Incorrect usage is incorrect usage, no matter how you want to look at it.

I’m sorry, but are we to assume that just because some group of people start using a particular grammatical mark in a certain way, we should accept it as correct?  As a former English teacher, I have to say that that is ridiculous.  What should we be teaching our students then?  “Well, there are some rules, but really, if you convince enough people to make the same mistakes you make, they’ll stop being mistakes.”

I’m curious the foundation for your statements about why people use these “shout quotes” (I’m calling that term into question, not emphasizing it, and the fact that I had to specify that is another reason why they should never be acceptably used that way) on signs.  Did you actually find signs and go asking the sign-makers why they used quotation marks?  Did they all tell you, “I wanted to emphasize the word, but underlining would have taken much too long, and writing in all caps would have been too much work, so I made a stylistic decision to use quotations marks instead.” If they did, then I can accept your argument at least a little more.  But my guess is that if you asked, a lot of people would admit that they didn’t realize it was incorrect to do that.

And as for the “tight-spinctered snobs” - by which I’m pretty sure you meant “tight-sphinctered snobs” - we’re not sneering at anyone.  We’re just trying to keep our language clear and comprehensible.

Why stop there? Just have people write without using periods, or commas, or any punctuation at all. We’ll be able to figure out their meaning, so it’s “fine”!

Whilst you’re argument makes a certain amount of sense, I still disagree with you. I would argue that the vast majority of people that use the quotation marks do so out of ignorance and not because they understand some obscure aspect of grammar. As such, the quotation marks are inappropriate and totally open to cheap laughs.

Hi Grant,

I’m a regular listener to “A Way With Words” by podcast and also a regular reader of “The Blog of Unncessary Quotation Marks”.

While I can see your point of view, I find the use of quotation marks for emphasis to be like fingernails on a blackboard. I doubt that I will ever be fully comfortable with it.

> But as examples on both sites show, there are
> proper, natural, widely understood rules behind
> using shout quotes

Would the rule be “whenevzer the hell you feel like it”? ‘Cause that’s the only rule I can see consistantly applied.

Wow. It must really be a hardship to be so utterly lacking in a sense of humor.

Well, I have to say that the comments alone were “worth the read.” I really “enjoyed” the article as well.

The “only” thing I kept thinking as I read it, though, was that people who find the “incorrect usage” of quotation marks funny aren’t really “misunderstanding” their meaning. They’re “snarking” at what the sign would mean if taken very “literally.” And usually, they’re pretty damn “funny” when read that way.

Thanks for a good time,
Maria

Grant,

Shouts are denoted by several other typographical mechanisms, such as ALL CAPS, underlines, and italics.  Making quotes do triple duty just isn’t cricket.

I’d second what previous commentors have said - can’t agree with you on this one. The mere fact that a mistake is common doesn’t make it right, nor does it mean that it contributes anything useful to the English language, or even that it is comprehensible.

Take apostrophes - those are very commonly used incorrectly on signs. Many, many people make the same mistakes with them. One could argue that there are “widely-understood” rules regarding the use of apostrophes in signs, and therefore people should just be allowed to put them in wherever they feel like doing so. But, as a friend of mine has said - “Apostrophes to not mean, ‘Hello, there’s an S coming!’” And it certainly doesn’t mean everyone else should just accept it as correct, even if they can figure out what the person was trying to say.

I know that English is a constantly-changing language, but there’s a balance needed between recognizing legitimate changes in usage and nonsense that results from people not knowing the correct rules. There are plenty of other ways to show emphasis, plenty of ways even easier than using quotation marks (how hard is it to draw a line under a word instead?), and I don’t see anything other than irritation and potential misunderstandings in attempting to accept “shout quotes” as correct usage.

You know what I hate more than “shout-quotes”? People who think that “snark” is a word.

“Grant, meet snark.”
“Snark, meet Grant.”

Great!  Now that you two have been properly introduced, we’ll explore why Grant is so hostile toward people who snark at grammar - in his own words, “tight-sphinctered snobs”.

Seriously, dude, how do you write a blog about slang and then not understand people who find language amusing?  I understand that as a slang expert you’re predisposed to accepting common usage as correct usage and innovating the mother tongue.  But what you’re proposing is the use of quotation marks to mean the opposite of the conventional definition, and that makes the language even more ridiculously ambiguous than it already is.

Oh, and Wallsy?  2.6 million hits say snark is a word.  It’s a slang word, but it’s a word and it developed along these lines: Lewis Carroll wrote a poem entitled The Hunting of the Snark.  Some dangerously overeducated computer programmer started referring to elusive bugs in his code as ‘snarks’ in honor of the poem and his friends liked it so much they copied the usage.  Another dangerously overeducated computer nerd named his server snark.thyrus.<domain> and started posting funny things on his webpage for other nerds to laugh at.  Next thing you know, sharp, cynical humor that mocks ignorance or other undesirable qualities is referred to as ‘snarky.’ A short leap in the slang usage of the word converted ‘snarky’ the adjective to ‘snark’ the verb.  Hello, word!

Thalassa, I’m aware of that. But 99% of times when someone says “snark” they mean “snipe”, and it pisses me off that they can’t just use the right word. Not to mention that I see the “word” snark about 50 times a day, and anything that repetitive is just going to get annoying.

Add to that the fact that 90% of people who use the “word” are self-righteous tossers and it just becomes that much more irritating to see it.

I have to weigh in on the side of the disagreers as well.  Admittedly, it IS often an elitist sort of humor that makes fun of these sorts of mistakes, and the jokes on the unnecessary quotations blog are often really stretched and unfunny.  Nevertheless, as someone else said, what’s wrong is wrong.  I would condemn such joking whenever it is rooted in racist, anti-immigrant sentiment or other hate, but for the most part it’s just good-natured fun.

The reaction to these sorts of mistakes and the humor about them should be “well, some people don’t know English very well but someday they’ll learn, and gently chiding them might help,” instead of “well, some people don’t know English very well but to hell with it, let’s just abandon the rules.”

Plus, the fact that you reply with insults after getting some well-reasoned and polite arguments against your point is no way to win friends and persuade people.  It makes me wonder what your ulterior motive is for promoting this “shout quote” idea so vehemently.  Did someone make fun of your lemonade stand sign when you were in 5th grade or something, and psychologically scar you forever?

Thalassa, Carroll’s snark is a different snark. Our “snark” and “snarky” likely come from a verb “snark,” which has the meanings of “to snore, to snort” and “to find fault with, to nag.” Both the Oxford English Dictionary and the narg, which means “to keep grumbling and finding fault, to be peevish, to argue snappishly.” OED glosses snarky as “narky,” which it defines as “irritable, bad-tempered; sarcastic, disparaging.” Both dictionaries also note that the word is related to, but not necessarily descended from, similar Scandinavian and German words. For what it’s worth, SND also has the adjective <a href="http://www.dsl.ac.uk/getent4.php?query=snarpy&sset=1&fset=20&printset=20&searchtype=full&dregi>snarpy</a>, meaning “snappish” or “surly.”

Congratuations.  You’re the very first person I’ve ever run across who has even hinted that such usage of punctuation marks even resembles something that is proper (and with no style manuals or other evidence to back it up).

While you may be a lexicographer, you’re certainly no grammarian.

Yeah, I gotta go with “everyone” else who has posted a “response” on this one. I have NEVER heard of ANYONE using QUOTE MARKS for emphasis.

As I was reading it was like I was staring at a one man crusade to change usage of punctuation marks.

No, quotation marks are rarely used for drawing emphasis to a certain word. They are considered scare quotes mostly, and sign makers do not do it on purpose most of the time. Those people are just plain stupid. Have a “nice” day. :P

“...there are proper, natural, widely understood rules behind using shout quotes, even if they’re taught in no grammar or style book that I can find.”

Grant,

If by “taught” you mean encouraged, you’re correct. But both Garner’s Modern American Usage (a source I’ve heard you cite to support some of your stances) and Chicago Manual of Style address the use of quotes you’re advocating.

“Chicago discourages this usage. Better to say exactly what you mean. Excessive use of scare quotes imparts a jittery feel to writing and gives the impression that the writer isn’t skilled at conveying precise meanings. When you decide to use them because they seem like the best way to introduce an unusual phrase or jargon, drop the quotation marks for subsequent uses of the same word or phrase.” [CMS Web site Q&A;]

Although they also say that scare quotes may sometimes be “used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense.” [CMS 15th ed., 7.58]

According to Garner’s:
Reserve quotation marks for five situation: (1) when you’re quoting someone; (2) when you’re referring to a word as a word; (3) when you mean so-called-but-not-really; (4) when you’re creating a new word for something—and then only on its first appearance; and (5) when you’re marking magazine articles, book chapters, poems, short stories, and songs. [Garner’s Modern American Usage; see Punctuation (N) for specific examples.]

Clearly, these are style guides meant to do just that—guide, and they have fans and detractors. I don’t need to rehash what so many have already said, but choosing to disagree with you leaves them in good company.

I have to agree with many of the others here.  There are many appropriate ways of indicating emphasis; quotes are simply not among these.  They have other uses, other meanings.  Grammar helps to make meaning clear.  There’s very little valid reason to use quotes for emphasis when there are perfectly good emphasis markers already in existence. 

Also - “decorating the page”? Really?  Quotes as decoration is one silliest defenses of punctuation misuse that I’ve ever come across.

This “article” is *hysterical*! It’s a joke, right??

Does this mean all those signs advertising CD’s, DVD’s, hamburger’s, and apple’s are “correct” too, since we know what they’re trying to say?

Thanks for the laughs! Amen, Maria.

Surely this post is in jest.  What self-respecting “lexicographer” could post this nonsense without tongue firmly planted in cheek?  Shout quotes are not, in fact, the same as scare quotes, which represent a deliberate use of sarcasm to undermine the subject (see quote marks in second sentence); “shout quotes” (see? I did it again!) are just a confused attempt at emphasis.  I acknowledge the changing nature of the language, but the perpetuation of rampant ambiguity does not merit endorsement.

Grant { $$WOW$$ <This article> has !really! o---p---e---n---e---d my @eyes to => (some) “exciting” new ¿?possibilities¿? At __last I have the ^FREEDOM^ to truly; e.x.p.r.e.s.s. my[self],,, You/are the JESUS† of “punctutation"# }

You much be “kidding,” right? Just because one can figure out the mistake does not mean one should also encourage it. I’ve seen ellipses used for periods. God help me if that becomes excused, too.

Not a fan of the term scare quotes.  You’re referring to something someone purports to represent.  Let’s say George Bush spoke out in favor of detainee rights.  Since his definition of “detainee rights” is clearly contrary to the standard definition of “detainee rights”, one would likely put the word “rights” in quotations (as in ‘detainee “rights” ‘) to illustrate that while he and the author agree on exactly what a ‘detainee’ is, he is certainly using his own definition for the word “rights” and therefore the reader should be made aware that the use of the term does not correlate with its true definition.

>So if they’re not scare quotes around “sack”, what are they?

They are scare quotes. A paper bag is not a sack. It certainly could be a “sack” - meaning ‘something which isn’t really a sack, per se, but is appropriately sackish in the context of hamburger delivery’.

I would argue that White Castle has quotes around Sack because they ARE scare quotes. They don’t want you to buy them in such quantities that you would need a potato sack, or a Santa Claus sack to carry them all, nor are they offering to package your purchase in such a sack. What they are doing is suggesting that you by relatively large numbers of sliders, compared to, say, McDonald’s.

In the case of “ “Sorry” there will be no pumpkin soup served today”. I believe the sign-writer was suggesting that “Sorry” is a quote from the proprieter of the restaurant. The restaurant said, “Sorry” because there would be no pumpkin soup served that day. Or let’s read it like this: “Excuse me, will there be any pumpkin soup served today?” asked the customer. “Sorry.” replied the waitress as she shrugged.

In conclusion, neither example was even using quote for emphasis.

quotation marks shouldn’t be used for emphasis.  emphasis is made in other ways

using quotation marks for emphasis isn’t correct english and should not be encouraged.

the blog of unnecessary quotation marks is just a bit of fun.  don’t take it so seriously.

lighten up.

“I have NEVER heard of ANYONE using QUOTE MARKS for emphasis.”

Then you “need” to read the “blog” of “unnecessary” quotation “marks”. There are “lots” of examples of people doing just “that”.

“Plus” it’s pretty “funny”.

This is almost completely off-topic, but I feel it is necessary.

Grant, I hope by now you are kicking yourself for your knee-jerk reaction, but I need to be certain. This is important:

**When debating with people on your blog, in order to retain the respect of your listeners, you must NEVER give in to the temptation to make ad-hominem arguments.**

We may be tight-sphinctered, but that doesn’t mean we’re wrong.

When is it ever not possible to underline or bold something for emphasis?  From typing to handwriting to dictating to writing with your toes, it’s always possible to do these things without resorting to unnecessary quotes. 

Then again, if people went around doing things properly, we’d have nothing to make fun of.

Well, no binaryborealis, it wasn’t an ad hominem attack. It was barely scratching the surface in trying to push the smug commenters here off of their ottomans to reexamine why they think the way they do. They’re by and large comfortable in their ignorance.

All of the arguments here against my point of view are very typical of the form of language commentary that this question receives. I’ve seen it all before, I know what it means, and I’m still entirely unconvinced by it. Most of it is cookie-cutter rhetoric borrowed from elsewhere--original thought on this subject is lacking.

The arguments against my point here are unconvincing in that they rest on:

1. Ignorance of what English syntax and grammar really allow.

2. Ignorance of the difference between style and grammar and style and syntax.

3. Ignorance of the social, cultural, and class issues that underlie style decisions and the condemnation of them.

4. A lack of generosity of spirit.

5. An unwillingness to assume intelligence and foresight in the actions of others.

6. Ducking under the cover of “humor” in order to disguise what are classist, elitist, and social judgments against people perceived to be inferior to the commentator.

The thing is, among the core body of linguists and university-level grammarians, my point of view is so ordinary and plausible so as to be hardly worth talking about, though folk use of punctuation is not well-studied.

I’ll accept that.  I am curious as to your reply to the argument that this is too confusing to accept as a method of emphasis, since there is already an identical and contradictory use of quotation marks in place.

I am curious as to your reply to the argument that this is too confusing to accept as a method of emphasis, since there is already an identical and contradictory use of quotation marks in place.

Lots of punctuation has more than one use. Periods are used to end sentences, to mark words abbreviated to a single letter, and to form ellipses. Apostrophes are used to indicate possession, to indicate abbreviation, and to indicate contraction, and they take the same shape as a closing single quote mark. Etc., etc.

So how do we determine which use we’re looking at? Through context. We disambiguate: we figure out what was intended by quickly (and unconsciously) sorting through the various options and then choosing the most likely one. We do it quite successfully with homophones, homographs, and homonyms, for example.

And, in fact, this disambiguation is working quite successfully with the quote marks, too. The commentators on the forums mentioned in my article, and the commentators on this web site, know very well what the original users of the scare quotes and shout quotes intended. They say it pretty plainly. But they are choosing to misunderstand--they are willfully deciding to be obtuse—in order to have a laugh, to criticize, or to be able to call someone stupid.

Even granting your argument that, when they’re not being intentionally obtuse, people can figure out the intention of such quotation marks (which, in many cases, is true - though there are also many cases where it is difficult to figure out whether quotation marks are intended as emphasis or sarcasm)…

I’m confused as to why we would need another way to emphasize words. There are so many ways already, and in any circumstance where one would use quotation marks at least one of the established forms would be usable with equal or greater ease. Why would we need another way to emphasize words? Isn’t English punctuation confusing enough as it is?

I’d argue that we’d all better watch out because the language is being changed by more than mere sign-writers.

That fact is, it isn’t a difficult task to read quotation marks as emphatic. The danger to those who see themselves as keepers of grammar is a loosening of their individual grip on rightness. Being an authority on a matter contains a measure of power and finding out that others may disagree is a threat to that power.

Might I propose an “observational” or “documentary” authority, then? Rather than merely holding the keys to an increasingly antiquated static system, pay attention to information like this and allow the shape of things to change as further evidence becomes available.

Communication is inherently mutable, and there is a majority (or significant minority) out there changing how it is used according to their own experience and ingenuity. Not being a part of that will someday leave a lot of people who feel they know all there is to know about English very alone.

Can any of you actually, practically reeducate all those people who are using the language in a way you didn’t intend? If not, then what is another practical solution?

The real purpose of communication is to ensure that we understand each other. I would suggest that by consistently and deliberately misreading shout quotes as scare quotes, you’re the one having the misunderstanding while a good number of others get it.

I don’t expect to cook perfect meals every time I try. I can feed myself, but I’m not paid to be a chef. If I went to a restaurant and purchased a meal, I would expect to be served adequate sustenance that was also properly cooked.

I don’t necessarily expect any Joe off the street to write a slogan to promote a daily special or a customer notice with perfect grammar (though it would be nice), but there is a difference between everyday notes and formal, professional writing. Scare/shout quotes are wrong. I have no problem if the barista at Starbucks writes a note telling customers that all “muffins” are “half” off, but I would certainly be dismayed to see a Nike ad proclaiming that we should Just “Do” It.

Yes, Philip, communication is mutable, but if an advertiser or editor is paid to supervise the creation and production of print media, I should hope he took the time to get his grammar right.

So, a certain amount are pics of emphasis quotes, but the best ones are the truely “unneccessary” quotes.

My favorite picture “are” the ones “where” someone “has” put quotes around words “that” are completely nonsensical, due “to” their lack of grammar skills.

That’s the kind of intentional misunderstanding you have to make in order to think that those quotes around “sack” shouldn’t be there.

Maybe they’re selling cat-meat instead of fish?
No! They just wanted to emphasise the word “sushi.” Very simple. You have to go out of your way to get it wrong.

Hi.  I know this is commenting late in the game, but I’d like to point out that seeing quotation marks used incorrectly pulls me out of what I’m reading—it breaks the flow of understanding.

In fact, it’s not that I have to go “out of my way” to misunderstand what’s being said, but that the quotation marks signal that I should be calling into question what is within them.  I then have to go out of my way to actually understand what the author meant to say.

It’s often funny to “intentionally misunderstand” something written with bad grammar or punctuation, but—for me—it comes from the amusement I feel because of the initial true misunderstanding.

“So how do we determine which use we’re looking at? Through context. We disambiguate: we figure out what was intended by quickly (and unconsciously) sorting through the various options and then choosing the most likely one.”

Okay, that is great, but when i see something in quotations, one of the options I unconsciously go through is NOT emphasis.  That is why we have rules.  Reading should be a fairly straightforward experience as opposed to one where you have to jump through hoops in order to understand the author’s intent.  Why not keep things simple?

Beautiful. I love it that so many people can see this reasonable and moderate view of language as going too far.

Too far for what? Are you all afraid that language is being defined by its speakers and writers?

That’s how it works.

OFF-TOPIC:
Genuine question - Why do you put SOME sentence punctuation within sentence elements, and other without.

Rightly or wrongly, I find it looks horrendous, for instance:
‘Buy ‘em by the “sack.”’ suggest to me that the full-stop was explicitly written, which I suspect may not have been the case.

As for inconsistency, the above rule should surely lead to ‘So if they’re not scare quotes around “sack”, what are they?’ being written as ‘So if they’re not scare quotes around “sack,” what are they?’

My feeling here is that Punctuation being quoted or referenced should fall within the quotation,
although the sentence itself should continues to abide by its rules, completely independently of its contents.

“Grant”, if that’s your “real” “name”, it appears you’re in the minority, as cogent as your point is.

I, too, would say that folks overuse scare quotes, although, unlike many of the other commenters, I am not one to get all worked up over the issue. It is reasonable to think that when they are used, there is a percentage (by my observation a large percentage) of folks who use them because they are not clear on how to get their point across.

As communicators, some folks know how to put a direct statement out there. Other are not so clear on their message or maybe are not confident of their skills. It’s, like, peppering one’s speech, you know, with, uh, quote-unquote, filler words that have no meaning, and, er, really don’t add nothing, so to speak, to the meaning of what’s being said, ahh, at that particular moment.

That said, I do stipulate they they are here and not going anywhere, so we’d best be getting used to them. Sometimes it’s comical. Sometimes it’s just sad. Periodically, though, it will work, such as the White Castle example. I gotta imagine that there is, even if it’s not on the menu, a quantity that makes up a “sack”, as opposed to a “handful” or a “few” or a “gross”. Have you ever tried ordering a “sack”?

>> On those boxes is printed the slogan Buy ‘em by the “sack.” <<

Hmm. From what I’ve seen there’s definitely no period inside the “sack”.

Kevin, click on the ad below from February 14th, 1952, which appeared in the Blue Island, Illinois, Sun Standard. In the coupon part you’ll see it with the period inside the quote marks. It’s a typical punctuating of the slogan, at least according to the dozens of ads I can find.

http://www.doubletongued.org/white-castle-ad-1952-Feb-14.sm.gif

Grant, I’m with you one-hundred percent. What a hilarious comment thread.
I seem to remember you & I having this “buy ‘em by the “sack"” conversation back in college, yes? I’ll pretend we did even if not the case. Seems like something we’d riff on.

After expending so much energy to defeat the elitism of language cops, why then Grant do you go on in the following supercilious fashion?

I’ve seen it all before, I know what it means, and I’m still entirely unconvinced by it. Most of it is cookie-cutter rhetoric borrowed from elsewhere--original thought on this subject is lacking.

The arguments against my point here are unconvincing in that they rest on:

1. Ignorance of what English syntax and grammar really allow.

2. Ignorance of the difference between style and grammar and style and syntax.

3. Ignorance of the social, cultural, and class issues that underlie style decisions and the condemnation of them.

It’s too bad we’re all so ignorant of these issues. Of course, if it were actually ignorance that stood in our way, you might explain the “difference between style and grammar” instead of jeering at all of the unoriginal thinkers rehashing stuff you’ve seen before. Then we might get somewhere.

Maybe it isn’t ignorance though! Maybe the posters here understand that changes in language always involve trade-offs, whether the changes are grammatical, stylistic, or syntactic. Increased ambiguity can produce a dense richness, but it also makes a language more difficult for people to learn. Moreover, sometimes the ambiguities are just ugly, as in this case, when the meanings you have to navigate between are in diametric opposition.

Jeff, elite behavior and supercilious behavior aren’t the same thing and they’re not mutually exclusive, nor does criticizing one making practicing the other hypocrisy.

Explaining the difference between style and grammar is hard to do in an 800-word newspaper column, while still keeping it interesting to the masses, though, really, I shouldn’t have to explain it. An armchair grammarian who has the nerve to make broad-brush criticisms about how large groups of people use language should already know the difference between style and grammar. It’s basic.

Know what else is basic? Not using quotes for emphasis.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?