Comments on: A typology of quotation marks

By: Chuck Quibell

Chuck Quibell — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:05:47 +0000

Who was it who said [to Ludwig Wittgenstein] “If you can’t say it, you can’t say it; and you can’t whistle it either”?

And then I heard about folks in the ?Canary Ids. who developed a whistling language in order to communicate over relatively short distances which are hard to negotiate on foot!

By: schrisomalis

schrisomalis — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:08 +0000

Derek – Given that there are multiple (at least five) other uses for quotation marks, the fact that there is a new and distinct use for quotes (the emphatic) is not surprising nor particularly offensive. One can find it unaesthetic, and certainly its contexts of use are informal, but Grant and I are in agreement that we are seeing a fairly natural semantic extension of quotation marks.

By: derek

derek — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:46:27 +0000

Nobody derides the *job*, they deride the inappropriate *use of quotes* to do the job.

By: schrisomalis

schrisomalis — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:41:57 +0000

I agree that this seems to be the case, just based on anecdotal evidence; sarcastic uses generally fall under the ironic category, although not all ironic quotation marks are sarcastic. It would be interesting to identify some body of texts and examine whether this is in fact the case that the use of quotes to express sarcasm is increasing.

By: sallyhanan

sallyhanan — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:40:01 +0000

People seem to use them more for sarcasm these days.

By: schrisomalis

schrisomalis — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:36:40 +0000

Grant: I agree – your analysis of “shout quotes” is exactly the same as my “emphatic” category. One could argue, I suppose, that the emphatic role is better served by other typographic conventions (boldface, underlining, asterisks, whatever) that do not create ambiguity with other forms. But really, given that my typology identifies so many different senses for quotation marks, that ambiguity is already there. Thanks for the link to your very interesting post.

By: Grant Barrett

Grant Barrett — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:51:53 +0000

I concur on your analysis of emphatic quotes: they do a job that should be recognized as valid rather than derided. I wrote about them last year and called them “shout quotes.”

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/grantbarrett/comments/a_hearty_endorsement_of_shout_quotes_scare_quotes_used_for_emphasis/

By: schrisomalis

schrisomalis — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:17:09 +0000

John – Yes, as far as Google can tell I’m the only one to have used that phrase. Thanks!

By: John Watson

John Watson — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:22:53 +0000

In my “internettic peregrinations” — is this a neologism of your creation? — I came upon your wonderful blog. Virtual serendipity on the Internet would seem an area worthy of consideration, study and reflection. The path I took to arrive here is too lengthy to state…many steps seemingly related and unrelated. The universe speaks to us this way many times. The Internet seems to me the Library at Alexandria to the 100th power.

I will definitely share your blog with several friends who also have an interest in language and its uses for fun and profit.

John Watson
Rhinebeck, New York

By: schrisomalis

schrisomalis — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:17:14 +0000

I’m not sure I agree with the phrasing “it’s not really what you’re saying”. When I quote myself (quotatively), it is really what I’m saying (I just said it in the past). When I use quotations neologistically, similarly, it’s hard for me to see how it’s not really what I’m saying – I’m defining a new term. And then there’s the emphatic, which I suppose one could try to discount as just errors of production – but they’re so common (as the unnecessary quotes blog shows) that it’s hard to see it as anything other than a new sense.