Skip to main content

Why are we so ignorant about inverted commas?

Punctuation is an essential tool of the trade for writers, and in the UK we seem particularly ignorant about inverted commas. They're even taught incorrectly in schools. I'm not referring to the punctuation mark that shares the same symbol - the apostrophe - but inverted commas, a.k.a. speech marks, quote marks or quotation marks.

There are three regular misuses. One is the idea that there is somehow a difference between speech marks and inverted commas used to isolate something, perhaps something 'dubious.' No - same rules apply to both.

The second problem is overuse of inverted commas to indicate 'terms' that we aren't really 'comfortable' with. If you find yourself doing this, go back and put in terms you are comfortable with. Using inverted commas in this way is amateurish.

Finally, and this is the one schools get wrong, there is the convention on when to use single inverted commas and when to use double. In the UK the convention is to use single pairs of inverted commas, then double ones if you need more inverted commas inside that first set. For example you might write:

'I just heard Mary say "I'm fed up," but she's not really,' said Peter.

In the US the convention is the opposite - double for first use, single for ones inside the first set.

For some reason, British schools teach students to use double inverted commas first - but the convention is very clear and you will find it in any UK writing style guide. Take a look in practically any book published in the UK and you will see it done this way. (Newspapers and magazines aren't such a good guide as they often go their own way on style.) So please, please, British teachers stop getting it wrong!

Several times I've pointed this out in my children's schools, but just got blank looks. Sigh.

Comments

  1. Well said Brian. Though I admit to probably making this mistake myself on many occasions - no more though!

    This reminds me of my pet peeve - the misuse of 'phenomena' and 'phenomenon'. It seems that almost everyone says things like 'A most unusual phenomena' when they should use the singular form 'phenomenon'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent, but lacking in swear words, c.f. http://community.livejournal.com/grammar_nazis/926422.html

    Which I think is mostly excellent - yet does rather devalue the use of fuck! imho, one should limit the use of this punctuation mark when one has no other option - it's when it's either one uses that word, or one breaks something relatively precious that one'll regret breaking later.

    No-one should mistakenly use single inverted commas to indicate uneasiness, when html enables italics so easily!

    Fancy a beer soon?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peet - italics are quite different, they indicate vocal stress points, not discomfort.

    Philip - I was a programmer. But even in the UK you program in US English (that's why it's a computer program, not a programme), so that's fine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you, Brian - I shall consider myself 'informed'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I suppose all of these writing style guides are good for newspapers and school students, but creative writers have a license to ignore them as they need. I wouldn't be too strident about the correct way to use this or that bit of punctuation. The rules evolve. Hidebound rule books are best for museums.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Of course creative writers can do what they like - but why not use the standard unless there is a good reason. And what possible reason? I suppose so you can be pretentious like e.e.cummings and forget how to use capital letters.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense