Punctuation When the Text Contains Quotes

In the process of accepting articles submitted to journals or workshops I have edited, I have noticed a number of frequently made errors. One of the most common areas of trouble is punctuation when quotes are involved. Problems with respect to this issue are understandable because the rules are neither logically consistent nor the same among different countries that speak English. This is a brief analysis of the major rules. This discussion covers most, but not all of the contingencies that arise in writing, particularly of dialogue.

Punctuation that involves quotes, particularly at the end of a sentence, is an issue that automatically breaks the rules of logic and consistency. A simple example of this is in the standard punctuation of the following sentence: He said, "I am a fool for believing that." This sentence is properly punctuated. Note that, technically, the complete sentence actually has no period. The period within the quotes is, in this example, really the period for the complete sentence although it clearly fits as the period for the quote itself. The primary role of serving as the period for the whole sentence actually takes precedence over its function within the quote. For example, consider the following variation of that sentence: He said, "I am a fool for believing that," loudly so that everyone could hear. In that sentence, the quote itself does not require a period but the sentence does, illustrating the primacy of the complete sentence. In the United States, periods and commas are always placed within the quotation mark, even when the mark does not belong to the quote. That usage is universally accepted within the United States but not in Great Britain.

The development of the rule that places punctuation marks inside quotes, even when their purpose is for the parent sentence was not for any rational consistency but for practical or aesthetic considerations in typesetting. There are two usual explanations, either or both of which could be correct. I favor the second only because it provides the more compelling reason. The most commonly given reason is for the typesetting space and appearance. It was argued that it simply looked neater when the sentence was more compacted and it saved a little space. The second reason given is related to the fragility of various types. The quotation mark, followed by a blank space containing only a period or comma, was fragile and more likely to break than when embedded in letters. Remember that early rules separated sentences by two spaces, not the current one. Even in the United States, however, the above rule is not usually followed if the quotation mark is used to indicate a special use of the word, indicating that it is either in an unusual sense or is being used as an object rather than for its literal meaning, for example: He did not know the meaning of the word, "stop". Thus, when the quotation mark is used to indicate something about the word itself rather than as a quote, the period comes after the mark.

This relative position is true, even in the united States, only for periods and commas. Colons, semi-colons, dashes, exclamation marks, and question marks are used in a more logical way. If the question mark belongs to the quote, for example, it follows it directly and inside the quotation mark. Take the sentence: Did he actually say, "I am an idiot"? In this case, the sentence, itself, is the question, not the quote and it is, properly, indicated by the question mark at the end of the complete sentence. Note that the quote itself is not accorded its period. The sentence: He was prone to ask, "Do you think I am an idiot?" is correctly punctuated. Note that if the last clause ("is correctly punctuated") were not present, that is, if the sentence ended after the word, "idiot," it would not have a period at its end. The stronger punctuation mark, the question mark, takes precedence. Note, also that when the strong punctuation mark is used in the quote, if the quote is followed by a pronoun, the pronoun is not capitalized. For example: "Do you think I'm an idiot?" she asked. Confused? Well, so are the Canadians who sometimes follow the American and sometimes the British usages, varying from one publisher to another.

All right with that? Now, what about quotes within a quote? Well, once again, the conventions are not entirely consistent. Within the United States, the most accepted practice is to place a quote within a quote in single quotation marks. This can appear somewhat odd, as in the sentence: She said, "He said to me, 'You are an idiot.'" That sentence has the contiguous single and double quote. Nevertheless, it is the usually accepted practice.

Vladimir Nabokov, who had as good a 'feel' for the English language (his third) as anyone else I have ever read, had a bit of wonderful fun with these rules in his brilliant, but often overlooked book, 'Pale Fire'. He wrote a 'tongue-in-cheek' epic poem that satirized the conventional punctuation (and much else) yet managed to be often brilliant poetry despite its playful nature. I commend it to anyone who enjoys language, itself, as an art form apart from its literal communication of ideas. (Note that just for kicks, I used the single quotation mark as an indicator of special meaning rather than the double. That usage is my preference, not standard and not necessarily shared by others. I think it can make it clear that the indicator is something other than a quote. This has been suggested before, for example by the Oxford Guide. There are, however, alternatives to the use of quotes to denote a special meaning for a word. In printed material, putting the word in italics conveys the same meaning as the use of quotes, either single or double. In handwritten or typed material, the underline serves the same purpose. When the material is, itself, a quote, the use of italics or underlining are, generally, better choices than quotes.