In Bierma's column today he tells of Bethany Keeley's Blog where she has pictures of unnecessary quotation marks. Her Blog was the Pick of the Day at Yahoo and featured in the AP with the headline, "Blogger 'Exposes' Annoying Quote Abuse." The thing is, she really isn't all that annoyed, she says, and she isn't happy being celebrated by Lynne Truss supporters. She isn't really a prescriptivist. Keeley said, "In most cases I'm intentionally misinterpreting people. What they mean to say is clear. I am mostly trying to have a little fun with language."

According to Bierma, linguist John McWhorter has argued that quotation marks can be considered legitimate indications of emphasis in on-standard English, especially on handwritten signs where bold and italics are hard to use.

I have to admit, this is one trend I haven't noticed. I will keep an eye out for it, though. I imagine I've just missed it.

quote:

According to Bierma, linguist John McWhorter has argued that quotation marks can be considered legitimate indications of emphasis in on-standard English, especially on handwritten signs where bold and italics are hard to use.

And not only (and maybe not even usually) emphasis. Quoted words and passages are often used to denote that the item is a statement or allegation from another source and thus not attributable to the journal that has printed it.

Thus, when reporting about new evidence in a murder investigation, a newspaper might print, "...New DNA evidence 'proves' accused man's connection...". This kind of device, they hope, will prevent their being sued, or taken to task in some other way, by distancing themselves from the statement made.

"We didn't say that the evidence proved anything; we said it was said to have 'proved' it", they could claim.

There're also scare quotes and air quotes. (Recently I've been reading up on verba dicendi (e.g., quotative go or like in English, iti in Sanskrit) which seems somehow connected.) I do like that Keeley is quoted as saying: "The grammar police want to claim me for themselves, but they're never going to get me onboard".

[Fixed faulty plural and punctuation.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

I have no problem with scare quotes - but have always found the use of air quotes profoundly irritating and have never used them.

I tend to use air quotes comically, quoting things which shouldn't be quoted, and blatantly not quoting things which clearly should be.

quoting things which shouldn't be quoted

Yes, Seanahan. I'd say my use of air quotes is only jocular, too.

Rather than use air quotes I just speak in itallics.

I just speak in italics

I find that a virtual apparatus criticus, with footnotes, meta-commentary, bibliography, stemmata, and such like, is necessary for some of my utterances.

quote: I find that a virtual apparatus criticus, with footnotes, meta-commentary, bibliography, stemmata, and such like, is necessary for some of my utterances.

"virtually necessary," at least. I can't comment about your utterances in the non-virtual world.

The sandwich bar next to my office has the annoying habit of identifying additions to their menu with the prefix "New" [sic].

That gives the opposite impression to what I assume they intend, and that the menu item is not really new.