• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Quoting Well, Part 3: Dot Dot Dot

December 13, 2011, 12:01 am

Today, in the last of a series of posts about quoting, I tackle ellipsis—that is, the omission of words, phrases, or longer passages from quotations. The best scholarly writers take care when using ellipsis. First, they use it with restraint and honesty; second, they render it clearly by means of punctuation.

While the first concern is more important, readers here are not likely to need my advice on how not to join two unrelated quotations to manufacture a connection the author didn’t intend. Or how not to, say, quote a presidential candidate verbatim while omitting the context that would make it clear that he was quoting someone else at the time, in disagreement. Most writers know how to be honest; it’s merely a matter of choosing to do it.

When it comes to punctuating, however, even writers who choose to follow convention may be flummoxed by how to integrate ellipsis dots (. . .) into various kinds of sentences. It’s a topic better suited to a manual than a blog post, but rather than threaten you with “Quoting Well, Part 87: When Both Quote and Containing Sentence End in Question Marks,” I will just hit the basics here. My examples feature only in-line quotations (not block quotations). I follow The Chicago Manual of Style in using three dots with a space on either side and nonbreaking spaces within, rather than use the ellipsis character (…) preferred by some style guides. Chapter 13 of CMOS has plenty more detail for those of you who can’t get enough of this stuff.

First, some grist for our mill:

‘Hold up!’ said an elderly rabbit at the gap. ‘Sixpence for the privilege of passing by the private road!’ He was bowled over in an instant by the impatient and contemptuous Mole, who trotted along the side of the hedge chaffing the other rabbits as they peeped hurriedly from their holes to see what the row was about. ‘Onion-sauce! Onion-sauce!’ he remarked jeeringly, and was gone before they could think of a thoroughly satisfactory reply. Then they all started grumbling at each other. ‘How STUPID you are! Why didn’t you tell him- – - -’ ‘Well, why didn’t YOU say- – - -’ ‘You might have reminded him- – - -’ and so on, in the usual way; but, of course, it was then much too late, as is always the case.

Note: In quoting from this original, I may silently change British punctuation to American, change ALL CAPS to small caps, and render the multiple hyphens into em dashes—all permissible silent changes—but if there had been British spellings, I would have left them intact (see Part 2). Note, too, that there is no need for ellipsis dots at the very beginning or end of a quote if it forms a readable sentence (see Part 1).

In the most simple instance of cutting words from the original passage, no punctuation accompanies the ellipsis. Three dots do the trick:

—“He was bowled over . . . by the impatient and contemptuous Mole.”

— “But . . . it was then much too late.”

This simple form may be used even if whole sentences are omitted, as long as the quotation is a readable (grammatical) chunk on its own:

—“The impatient and contemptuous Mole . . . was gone before they could think of a thoroughly satisfactory reply.”

Often, however, other punctuation is required, especially when the quotation is taken from more than one sentence:

— “Then they all started grumbling at each other. . . . But of course, it was then much too late.”

In the example just above, the period before the ellipsis dots marks the end of a sentence in the quote, whether or not the original sentence ended at that point. The word But is capped to signal a new sentence (grammatically speaking), even though in the original it appears midsentence, lowercased. Such changes help smooth the reading of the truncated version; to this end, there is some flexibility in punctuating bits of quoted text. We could have punctuated the last quotation this way, instead:

—“Then they all started grumbling at each other . . . ; but of course, it was then much too late.”

This time the dot after other is not a period; it’s the first dot of the ellipsis. Thus the space before it. The semicolon is positioned as it was in the original. Commas, exclamation marks, question marks, and colons work the same way as the semicolon, placed before the ellipsis and closed up to the word if they appeared that way in the original, or placed after the ellipsis if not:

—“The rabbit said, ‘Hold up! . . . Sixpence for the privilege of passing . . . !’ He was bowled over in an instant.”

Note: Periods are treated differently. Whenever four dots are involved, the first one is closed up to the preceding word. Whether you perceive them as a period followed by an ellipsis or an ellipsis followed by a period, just close up the first one. It is pointless to overthink this.

If a sentence in a quotation trails off, incomplete, the ellipsis stands alone, without any ending punctuation. Note that the closing quotation mark comes immediately after the last dot in the ellipsis, without a space:

—Grahame hints at something when he writes, “but, of course, it was then . . .”

If the containing sentence requires its own internal or terminal punctuation, it falls after the quotation mark, lest it be taken as belonging to the quotation:

—What is Grahame hinting at when he writes, “but, of course, it was then . . .”?

—Grahame writes, “but, of course, it was then . . .”; only he would put it that way.

This last rule does not apply to commas, which (in US-style punctuation) always stay within the quotation marks:

—When Grahame writes, “but, of course, it was then . . . ,” we know what he means.

—When Grahame writes, “but, of course, . . .” we know what he means.

You may wonder why there are exceptions for commas and periods. I don’t know why. Perhaps these marks can get away with it because they are so small. In any case, by now you may be feeling a little punchy, as I am. If you are left with questions, feel free to post them below—or better, send them to CMOS. For now, all I have to say is “Onion-sauce! Onion-sauce!”

______

Quotations from Kenneth Grahame, Wind in the Willows (New York: Puffin Books, 2008), 2­­–3.

~ ~ ~

Readers may send Carol questions about academic writing, editing, and publishing. Write to her at AskCarolSaller@gmail.com. (Please ask questions about Chicago style here.)

This entry was posted in Academe, Editing, Grammar, Style, Words, Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • gavin_moodie

    I understand that it is a bit off topic, but am I correct to indicate in block quotes a missing paragraph by inserting 3 asterisks centred on a line?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Saller/100002198727755 Carol Saller

      Hmm. I haven’t seen it done that way. Just put dots at the end of
      the first paragraph or the beginning of the next (or both).

  • http://nathaniel-campbell.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel M. Campbell

    I’ve been given conflicting advice on this, so I thought I’d pipe up for your consideration.  You seem to use ellipses just on their own, i.e. “But . . . it was then much too late.”  But I was told as an undergraduate that the ellipses should be contained within parentheses, i.e. “But (. . .) it was then much too late.”  Thoughts?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Saller/100002198727755 Carol Saller

      Square brackets are more usual [. . .], especially in languages other than English, but they’re not necessary.

    • amandalindsay

      I agree with Carol, I was always taught to use brackets to offset ellipses within a quotation in instances when they were not part of the original text or statement. If not within brackets, I may assume they were part of the original text being quoted or indicating an actual pause in the statement rather than an omission.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Saller/100002198727755 Carol Saller

        If there’s any ambiguity, the writer should explain, either with an occasional note (“ellipsis in original”) or by including a note on method (“Ellipses not in the original are bracketed”).

        • kweber

          Though wouldn’t the use of brackets automatically indicate that the elipses were not in the original?

  • v8573254

    As usual, both charming and informative.  In another blog in today’s Chronicle, the writer reports new graduates have no grounding in punctuation.  This complaint (frequent) forgets at least two things.  First, the intensity and motivation necessary to unravel some punctuating situations, even for experienced writers.  Second, writing with some complexity and with use of quotations from other sources generally accompanies maturity and more nuanced understandings of subject.  It’s good to remember that the 21-year-old is still young and inexperienced.

    • kweber

      I agree with v8573254, that it does us well to recall that even with experience we may encounter challenges in crafting our writing.

      Having read several grammar posts this afternoon, it also occurs to me that the frequent despair over the lack of students’ ability to properly use punctuation/grammar may occasionally reflect variation in instruction, rather than a lack thereof.
      Perhaps those who are quick to be offended by writing mistakes ought to become more familiar with the variations offered (such as: Strunk & White and Pullman; UK and US standards; APA vs. MLA vs. other disciplinary standards).

      For example, I spend a fair amount of time double checking my usage with the American Anthropological Association style guide–which may not produce writing that follows the recommendations of historians or physicists, etc. Beginning and ending ellipses are not recommended, spelling and punctuation are both meant to be left as they are in the initial quote, though the initial letter of a quote may be changed to upper- or lower-case without brackets.

  • http://twitter.com/EditorMark Mark Allen

    I can’t not overthink: A period followed by an ellipsis indicates to me a complete sentence followed by an omission; an ellipsis followed by a period indicates an omission within the sentence. Sometimes this matters.

    I searched some style guides to back me up, and I’ve yet to find any that agree. The Associated Press and APA guides agree with the Chicago Manual of Style on this. So I might have to stop messing up other people’s copy and reserve this for my personal style sheet. (I did find some surprising variations. The Guardian and National Geographic don’t bother with periods on either side of an ellipsis.)

    • dank48

      “A period followed by an ellipsis indicates to me a complete sentence
      followed by an omission; an ellipsis followed by a period indicates an
      omission within the sentence.”

      “A period followed by an ellipsis indicates to me a complete sentence
      followed by an omission; an ellipsis followed by a period indicates an
      omission within the sentence. . . .”

      “A period followed by an ellipsis indicates to me
      . . . an
      omission within the sentence.”

      I for one don’t understand what you mean by “an ellipsis followed by a period.”

    • http://twitter.com/APvsChicago AP vs. Chicago

      You have a friend in The Gregg Reference Manual, 11th edition.

      Para 276: If one or more words are omitted at the end of a quoted sentence, use three spaced periods followed by the necessary terminal punctuation for the sentence as a whole.

      Para 277: If one or more sentences are omitted between other sentences within a long quotation, use three spaced periods after the terminal punctuation of the preceding sentence.

      Makes sense to me!

  • dank48

    “It is pointless to overthink this” puts the matter perfectly. My best guess about the periods and commas in US usage is that it’s basically esthetics. UK-style primary quotes are single, so the “logical” placement of commas and periods outside isn’t a big deal. However, with double quotes, the comma or period outside seems ungainly:

    Nigel thought it looked ‘ugly’.  
    Pat thought it looked ‘ugly.’   
    Buck thought it looked “ugly”.  
    Georgia thought it looked “ugly.”

  • dottyeyes

    Although I don’t use brackets when I alter capitalization for correct syntax at the beginning of a quote, I do use brackets if I change capitalization internally. So I would have marked your example thus:

    “Then they all started grumbling at each other. . . . [B]ut of course, it was then much too late.”

    Am I incorrect?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Saller/100002198727755 Carol Saller

      There’s nothing wrong with having brackets, but I don’t recommend them because they make the quotation harder to read, and the information they convey is usually trivial or irrelevant. I would use them only when they serve a real purpose.

  • beedhamm

    I need to read Wind in the Willows: “Onion-sauce! Onion-sauce!”

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Saller/100002198727755 Carol Saller

      Seriously, it’s the most comforting, back-to-the-womb book I know.

  • lenoreb

    This was just delightful–thank you so much!

    btw, I thought the quotes with semicolons were quite ungainly.

  • Ludo Totem

    So what exactly is Word’s ellipsis character (…) for? Nothing? Languages other than English?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carol-Saller/100002198727755 Carol Saller

      Many publishers (e.g., New York Times, Chronicle of Higher Ed) use that character instead of the Chicago-style spaced dots.

    • dank48

      French.

  • stevegilbert

    “How to use… ellipsis in a quote… making…the person you’re quoting into an ass” Very he**ful!

    [Sorry, I couldn't resist.]

  • bigtwin

    These are noble suggestions but I seriously doubt much of the current output of historians will be of interest to anyone other than historians. Not only is it written as stilted jargon – most of it is just plain boring and of interest only to antiquarians and the like. Historians would need to fundamentally alter their research interests and methodologies to have any appeal outside the ivory tower. The public likes public history, biography, political history – the very types of scholarship that most contemporary historians shun and ridicule.

    As for collaboration – particularly with policy-makers and institutions – I’d say that we have a long way to go before such a suggestion could be taken seriously by anyone. Let’s face it – scholars do not have a great reputation in non-academic circles. Why? Too much scholarship has become a facade for political advocacy for causes that tend to be fundamentally anti-state, anti-establishment, etc.. Historians are now supposed to collaborate with those that they so freely criticize?

  • dnewton137

    I applaud Professor Potter’s thoughtful article.

    As historians wrestle with how and whether to forsake the traditional model of the solitary scholar thinking great thoughts in the upper reaches of the Ivory Tower, they might find it useful to consider the situation in other academic fields.  In my own field, physics, collaboration has been customary and pervasive for a long time.  In some cases that has been forced by circumstances.  For example, conducting an experiment (like the searches for the Higgs boson) on a major accelerator requires a team of hundreds if not thousands of people, not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars.  It’s common for the paper announcing an important result to run no more than a couple of pages but to have a hundred or more authors.  But the practice of testing one’s physics ideas among colleagues before publication is common throughout the field.  An old adage is that “Physics is a social science.”

    Of course, successful collaboration among the members of a team, large or small, requires learning certain behavioral practices, and is not always smooth and easy.  Another adage is, “Physics is a contact sport!”  However, those practices are very useful both within and without the academic world, and can be recommended to historians as well as physicists.

  • physioprof

    Very interesting post. My impression–based on my observations and experiences as a natural scientist–is that the single biggest impediment to freeflowing collaborative efforts is the anachronistic nature of the allocation of academic credit, which is based as you describe on the model of the solitary scholar. While the natural sciences are farther along than the humanities in accepting and embracing collaborative creative effort, there is still an undue emphasis placed on allocating credit for scientific discoveries and identifying the individual who was the “driving force” behind a collaborative effort.

    This “driving force” calculus permeates all aspects of professional advancement: securing jobs, getting promoted and tenured, getting grants, securing higher level administrative positions, receiving prizes, etc. The notion of genuinely equal collaborative effort is still foreign, although it is being dragged kicking and screaming into being, as a necessary sequelae to the explosion of interdisciplinary methodological approaches that are by necessity implemented by collaborative teams.

    So the bottom line is that it if you are interested in predicting how things might develop in the future in the humanities in terms of collaborative scholarly effort–or even nudging their development in desired directions–I recommend you explore the social science literature and less formal commentary on collaboration in the natural sciences.

  • 22116123

    I’m an amateur historian (with some graduate training in historiography), and an avid consumer of historians’ intellectual output. My own discipline is the social and administrative sciences in pharmacy. I’m not sure that it is appropriate to characterize historians as canaries in the academic mine, but I do know that my colleagues in pharmaceutical sciences are just as resistant to recognizing collaboration as other disciplines. Your prescription for historians is fully valid for almost all other disciplines within academe.

  • http://historyinthecity.blogspot.com/ Michelle Moravec

    from your mouth to the ears of the powers that be!  I particularly enjoy cross discplinary collaboration (such as a Getty funded project I just completed with three art historians and a documentary film maker).  Working with people outside of history changes the way I think about my more traditional monographic history writing.  It also allowed me to participate in curating an art exhibition and cotributing to an exhibition catalog for the public, two v. cool things historians seldom get to do!

  • katisumas

    I wonder about your examples.  Why didn’t you use historians such as Marc Bloch? Or what about Howard Zin?  They would fit so much better with Occupy since you mention the movement.

    Collaboration is great, but how about pursuing historical knowledge even under difficult circumstances and sometimes without a job.  I still think often think of Marc Bloch participating in the Resistance (and eventually being killed by the German occupiers) writing his slim volume about the purpose of studying history.  The opening sentence (I paraphrase) states that number one purpose is that the study of history gives pleasure to the historian.

    Well he certainly was not ensconced in an academic position at the time.  He was one of the prominent scholars and scientists with Jewish background who were offered asylum in the US during WWII (Claude Levi Strauss being one of them).  He refused, preferring to fight at home.  His historical knowledge made him well aware of what fate might await him.

    I do agree with your argument that collaboration is great.  Actually, whether we formally collaborate or not, we are always in fact collaborating as knowledge is always transmitted and shared. 

    What concerns me  in your article and others about the humanities is that scholars in those fields seem reluctant to state how exciting and interesting and worthwhile their fields of study are regardless of their popularity or lack of it. (aren’t these the reasons why PhDs labor as adjuncts: for the love of their field and learning and teaching?). 

    It is possible to write scholarly well researched books with plenty of references that are also popular. Recent examples are The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (which is actually a pivotal history book, even though written by a journalist, or The Emperor of All Maladies: a Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee which is both a history book of cancer and an outstanding work in the history of science written by an MD. So these are definitely interedisciplinary words but rooted in deep historical research going well beyond (or rather beneath!) the history of events that so many people find boring. I do hope historians take notice of the historical scholarship in these books and share it with their students).

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=539830661 Itay Eisinger

    Should I use [...] or …?
    I saw that you had already answered to this question, but can you adviced, for good, which is better? Can I use both methods in the same thesis?

    2. Also, is that sentence correct:

    that ‘like in the Ramallah Lynching [of 2000]  the “peace activists” asked for the blood of IDF
    soldiers.’

    3. Can/should I use page number (as p.) in the text-body, when I translate&quote from newspapers, while at the rest of my thesis [when I quote articles] I use footnotes at the bootom of each page? Also, while quoting newspapers, I use both, giving the page number at the body-text and the general refernce as a footnote. My Prof. approved it. is that ok?

    “David of 2010 is a Commando officer, that
    had not fired first, and was captured, and [had] been stabbed and beaten, and
    was thrown into to the sea, but one who defeats nonetheless”[1] (p.3).

    4. My whole text is double-spaced, while quotes are one-line spaced. What should be the space before and after a quote-block?

    [1] Dan Margalit, “Erdoğan is a
    Warmonger,” Israel Hayom, June 4, 2010.

    Thank you so MUCH,
    I am not a native speaker. I paid for an editor but she did a lousy job, and I am so desperate!

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037