0

Background

This website has had a fair share of questions on the use of single versus double quotation marks. The most popular question on this topic is a good resource on their use in American and British English.

To summarize, American English mostly uses double quotes and reserves single quotes for specific use cases, while British English theoretically prefers single quotes, though this is not necessarily the case in practice.

Question

However, I have noticed a pattern in the way some people use single and double quotes which is not mentioned in any of the style guides referenced in the question I linked to. Some people seem to use single quotes when quoting a single word or a phrase, and double quotes for anything longer than that. This would look like the following example.

While Alice said that this constitutes ‘proof’, Bob insists that “more evidence is needed before a conclusion can be confidently reached”.

I am not the only one to notice this use pattern. In his answer to the question I linked to above, a user called “mafu” notes that

I found that in practice single marks are commonly used for single words or short sentences while double marks are used to denote longer passages of text.

Is this a legitimate thing? Is there any style or grammar guide that recommends or accepts this?

More Details

I was trying to figure out the origin of this use pattern.

A user called “jbelacqua” explains in a comment that he/she does this because he/she feels that, since double quotes require more effort to input on a keyboard, they befit longer quotes which justify that effort.

Also, this use pattern might have been inspired by programming, as discussed in this question. However, that refers to quoting single versus multiple characters, so I’m not sure if that could have carried over to quoting single versus multiple words.

hb20007
  • 1,616
  • 5
    My initial reaction is that quoting single-words is often either more about resolving use-mention than "really" quoting someone's words, or putting the word in "scare" quotes. Whether that has much/any bearing on different quoting styles I don't know... – TripeHound Nov 25 '20 at 16:11
  • 2
    No. I try to use double quotes for direct speech and single quotes for every other usage, but it can get complicated, especially when quoting direct speech written in a passage by someone else. 'Scare [etc?] quote' usages, and these include offsetting unusual words or senses of words, and catchphrases say, most of which are short, are in my experience given using single quotes. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 25 '20 at 16:12
  • I'd say if anything there should be a tendency to apply the *opposite* principle. I see far more "Quotes within quotes" contexts where the outermost text (which by definition must be longer than any "contained" quoted material) is enclosed in double quote marks, and the embedded quote uses single quotes. And that makes sense to me, because the double quote feels "stronger / more conspicuous", so it's entirely natural that it should terminate the entirety of any text involving any quote marks at all. And an x* within an X* beats an X* within an x* for me every time. – FumbleFingers Nov 25 '20 at 18:12
  • 'British English theoretically prefers single quotes, though this is not necessarily the case in practice.' What does this mean? 'British English' can only be at best a loosely-defined term describing the practice of most Brits (and I think the term is unhelpful) ... as has often been stated, there's no Grammar / Semantics / Punctuation Tsar(/s) in the UK, the USA, or elsewhere prescribing what must be done, particularly in grey areas such as this. // I try to put direct speech in double inverted commas, and other quotes, and scare usages etc, in single quotes. But this gets difficult ... – Edwin Ashworth Jun 25 '21 at 11:27
  • especially with nested quotes and quoting written material already containing quotes. // Choosing to use double inverted commas once a quote gets beyond a certain length is non-standard, almost certainly more confusing even than accepted conventions, and arbitrary (how many symbols before a doubling of commas?) // 'A user X explains in a comment that they do this because they feel that, since double quotes require more effort to input on a keyboard, they befit longer quotes which justify that effort.' Is X going to use triple quotes for wowzers ... – Edwin Ashworth Jun 25 '21 at 11:36
  • @EdwinAshworth Regarding the conventions of "British English" which I summarized, you can refer to the link I have to the SE answer. Of course, there are no "grammar Tsars", but there are style guides. In my own research, I wasn't able to find any style guide or official source which recommends this pattern of quotation marks. So, I would also accept an answer which confirms this. – hb20007 Jun 25 '21 at 12:48
  • 'British practice is normally ...' and 'others might argue that this is a difference between British English and American English.' do not justify your 'To summarize, American English mostly uses double quotes and reserves single quotes for specific use cases, while British English theoretically prefers single quotes' which suddenly claims authenticity for 'British English' and 'American English' as well-defined entities. With footpath / sidewalk, there is a sharp divide in usage, but with 'xxxx' / "xxxx" there are only reasonably broad trends. // I've never come across this outlandish ... – Edwin Ashworth Jun 25 '21 at 13:39
  • relationship between length of quote (etc) and number of inverted commas to use. What happens with quotes-within-quotes? And do we start using 'xxx" structures? If used, this is too parochial, unwieldy, and hence confusing to be endorsed. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 25 '21 at 13:40
  • 1
    Broadly-speaking my British English experience/usage understands that double quotes indicate words spoken by someone whereas single quotes generally draw attention to the fact that a word(s) are being used in a special way. That said, it's quite common to find novels in which neither kind of quotation mark is used. A less-punctuated method of indicating speech can be confusi is clearer and simpler to read when done well. – Dan Jun 25 '21 at 14:05
  • 1
    Oops, forgot to answer the question - no, I have never noticed the length of a quote being the reason for single or double quote marks. – Dan Jun 25 '21 at 14:08
  • I have some recollection, this would have been around 1990 in the U.S., of learning the "rule" that single words get single quotes. I appear to have broken that rule just now though, but maybe that's because there is an exception for air-quotable single words. – cruthers Jun 26 '21 at 17:12
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth: Surely the Chicago Manual of Style (and others) is s kind of rule setter in the absence of an official body. – Cass Lopez Jun 27 '21 at 04:16
  • I often use single quote marks where I should probably use italics - to emphasize the word inside the quotes or to remove any grammatical ambiguities. For example - I would use the word range, vs. I would use the word ‘range’. And always a double quote when directly quoting someone. – Cass Lopez Jun 27 '21 at 04:23
  • @Cass Lopez Obviously a lot better than nothing. But the CMoS and other style guides often differ on advice, and some Brits prefer to (or have to, to keep their jobs) use CMoS while some Americans prefer say The BBC News Style Guide, The Economist Style Guide or The Guardian Style Guide. And why shouldn't one mix and match? I'm glad to see that others here prefer double inverted commas for (primary) quotes of direct speech and single inverted commas for novel/uncommon usages etc. Partial quotes (Elbonia is 'on a war footing', according to sources) are a problem, as are nested quotes. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 27 '21 at 16:07
  • Suggesting programming languages may have played a role in this is rather chicken and egg. PHP for example, allows easy insertion of variable values, escape characters, etc, in double quotes. So you get into the habit of using double quotes for most things and singles for embedded quotes and more atomic (smaller) words and phrases. But PHP, in its early versions, was less designed than just slapped together with useful constructs. Why DID the language builders choose to assign such roles to double and single quotes? $answer = "I asked him, but he said 'I don't know!'" – wordragon Jun 30 '21 at 03:43

2 Answers2

2

We were unable to find any style guide which suggests exactly this. It seems that there are only a few cases of individuals who do it because they come from a programming background or for other reasons.

hb20007
  • 1,616
  • And therefore choosing to employ this device would be to espouse the non-standard, and open oneself to being considered eccentric at best, perhaps careless; clarity may even be compromised as many might expect more common usages and misinterpret accordingly. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 01 '21 at 11:22
1

Is there any style or grammar guide that recommends or accepts this?

There’s nothing I’m aware of that exactly fits the approach you describe, but two style guides come close.

I do freelance editing for a major UK-based content (marketing) company. Their style guide requires that direct speech is to be enclosed in double quotation marks, and “Use single quotation marks for words and phrases that aren’t actually quotations.”

The Guardian’s style guide has a very detailed explanation of how quotation marks are to be used. Again, not exactly what the question describes, but fairly close:

Use double quotes at the start and end of a quoted section, with single quotes for quoted words within that section. Place full points and commas inside the quotes for a complete quoted sentence; otherwise the point comes outside – “Anna said: ‘Your style guide needs updating,’ and I said: ‘I agree.’” but: “Anna said updating the guide was ‘a difficult and time-consuming task’.”

And…

Use double quotation marks for words that aren’t actually quotations, for example: These are the people who put the “style” in style guide.

It’s always important to keep in mind that there’s no “correct” approach to punctuation: while there are accepted conventions, all punctuation is a matter of style, and any convention can be altered or even dispensed with. The more important considerations are (1) does my punctuation style meet my objectives (whether informative, hip, technical, informal, artistic or something else) in presenting my words to the reader; and, perhaps more importantly, (2) am I meeting the requirements of my publisher?

Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
  • 3,166
  • 8
  • 24
  • 35
  • 2
    What I described might have started as a misinterpretation of this. – hb20007 Jul 01 '21 at 14:33
  • @hb20007 Understood. I’ve updated my answer to reflect this and to add another example. What you describe seems to fall neatly between these two approaches! :-) – Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Jul 01 '21 at 14:38
  • But other guides differ markedly. No wonder the 'Guardian" once had such a reputation for a different approach to English. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 01 '21 at 14:42
  • 1
    @edwin indeed. But I’m simply responding to the question of whether there’s any style guide that does this, and I offered two that come close. In fact I usually VTC any question about style as inherently POB, but a VTC seems pointless when there’s an accepted answer and a bounty. Plus, I wanted to provide an alternative to the other answer’s jarringly categorical assertion that there are “only a few cases of individuals who do it”. – Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Jul 01 '21 at 15:09
  • But, as the raison d'être of ELU is to find, analyse, catalogue and promote sound practice, I'll reiterate: '[C]hoosing to employ this device (as spelled out by OP) would be to espouse the non-standard, and open oneself to being considered eccentric at best, perhaps careless; clarity may even be compromised as many might expect more common usages and misinterpret accordingly. ' – Edwin Ashworth Jul 01 '21 at 15:19