As I said above, I think it’s because of the way it looks:
See how the comma is sort of floating out on its own: it doesn’t look like it’s connected to the word it follows, and may even look like it’s closer to the next word along.
But this is just a guess. If anybody knows anything about why the American rule is the way it is, I’d be interested to know.
One hopes you teach exclusively American students who will work exclusively in an all-American environment, never needing to remove their blinders long enough to know that there are a variety of sensible ways to approach the routine tasks demanded of people throughout the world.
I’ve been in many learning environments since venturing off to college decades ago, and I can’t think of a single one that was so parochial as to contain only Americans who needed only American-style conventions. On the contrary, I have been delighted to rub shoulders with, and learn from, citizens from all over the world who broadened my perspective and made me realize that, excepting certain core values such as human rights, there usually is more than one perspective worth valuing.
I hope you manage to convey that to your students despite the “American F” you might give them for violating your punctuation rules. Tell me, do they flunk your class if they write dates as “11 June 2022” instead of “June 11, 2022” as well?
That is what I learned: that this is a convention that came from typesetters for aesthetic reasons. But I do not have a source for that.
I also flunk ‘em if they use a silly spelling like ‘labour’ or "favour’ or say “bumbershoot” instead of “umbrella.” I don’t even wait for the end of the term–I have them physically removed from my classroom by security guards, never to return.
Of course I don’t. But I do mark all these things as “incorrect” and let them know that there are parts of the world that deem their errors as perfectly fine, just not here. You actually have to write pretty damn sloppily to earn an “F” in my courses–usually, I reserve those for plagiarists or those few who can’t wrestle the English language to a draw.
And with the quotation marks/commas thing, I actually make a point of saying that the British convention is more logical, but I want them to apply the rule, not logic. There are rules that follow logic, but this is not one of those.
I was in college when the stylebooks started to tell us to put stuff inside the quotation marks. As far as I could tell the rationale was that “looks pretty on the page” takes priority over “communicates information to the reader”.
When your Hastily-Typed Manuscript was converted to a Properly-Published Article or Book, underlining was an instruction to the typesetter to italicize something.
One of the most famous pieces from the early days of National Lampoon was Michael O’Donoghue’s “How to Write Good.”
And a squiggly line underneath meant bold face. Those were the days.
I’m in book publishing and I have Word macros that converts underline to the italic codes.
This is a style matter, not a matter of correctness. In Associated Press style, for example, all titles are in quotation marks. Italics and underscore are not used.
The comma is incorrect. Omit it.
This is generally preferred in British style guides. The full stop goes outside the inverted commas because the full stop is not part of the title or the quoted matter.
This is generally preferred in American style guides. The period goes within the quotation marks, regardless of whether the period is part of the title or the quoted matter.
Then the professional copy editors are incorrect, because the two question marks aren’t redundant, as they belong to two different questions. I can accept that language sometimes isn’t logical, but it should be. Which leads me to…
But why? Why should they follow rules that are known to be illogical? Just because they’re the rules? If that’s the case, then surely what we ought to do is change the rules. It’s not like the rules are handed down from God: They’re made by us-- all of us. And since we’re the ones who made them in the first place, we can change them.
There are a lot of answers to that question. Inertia. Money. Pride.
There are currently movements for more logical language. There have been since at least the Greeks and Romans. Sometimes they have an impact, like the now largely obsolete prescriptivist edicts of the 17th and 20th centuries. It never lasts.
Language simply isn’t logical. Literally can mean figuratively. Double negatives sometimes do and sometimes don’t result in a positive. And stacking punctuation looks like crap, so we try not to do it.
Logically, the question marks belong to two different questions. Grammatically, they are redundant because it is implicit - to experienced readers - that the one question mark applies to both the title (“Who Goes There?”) and the question being asked (“Have you read it?”) By contrast, the double question mark method is akin to: “Have you read “Who Goes There?” whose title is a question?”
I don’t see how there can be any reality-based expectation that language would be any more “logical” than the humans who created it. At the extreme, such an expectation would project a Platonic Ideal on humans which they have never demonstrated a capacity for reaching and/or sustaining.
Could the rules of language be made more logical? Probably, but such efforts seem likely to come into conflict with by-now well-established conventions, in addition to the ever-present risk of being overtaken by even less “logical” permutations (e.g., Ebonics).
Ebonics—or, rather, African-American Vernacular English—is neither more nor less “logical” than any other variety or dialect of English. It has an orderly grammatical system. Indeed, it’s verb tense/phase and aspect system can be considered more complex than standard English.
I learned (in a Journalism class that included some history of printing) that Americans put punctuation inside the quote marks because if were outside, it had a tendency to get dislodged or misaligned during the printing process on those old press 'em down printing presses.
Personally, I follow British conventions with respect to marks of punctuation and quote marks as they more logical.
That.
That is a bit verbose, though. English has enough flexibility with construction as to allow clean sentences like,
The short story “Who Goes There?”, have you read it?
or,
Have you read “Who Goes There?”, the short story?
although the issue of the comma becomes problematic. i make a point of avoiding contractions in writing and find that, sometimes, reconfiguring a sentence can make it sound a little less stilted.
Maybe? If you’re going to write for someone else (like a particular publication), you need to follow the rules that their usage and style guide dictate.
Style is a variable aspect of language, just as pronunciation is. Speech has dialects and so, essentially, does style. The dialects of style are codified by style manuals. The major ones are University of Chicago style for books, AP style for newspapers, MLA style for academia, and a variety of legal styles for law. Dozens of minor and specialized styles co-exist. They have dozens, maybe hundreds or thousands of differences among them, including when to use the word “among.” It gets worse. The New York Times has its own style guide. So does The New Yorker magazine. When I signed a contract for my first book it said that I should use Chicago style so naively I went out and bought the expensive hardback. Then the publisher sent me a list of its personal 50 exceptions. I let their copywriters figure it out and nobody ever said a word.
If you are not writing for a publication that uses a particular style manual you are not bound by any of them. You cannot be “wrong” in so doing. What people do instead is apply their own notions of style. Usually that more or less conforms to Chicago style, since the others are more specialized. They will not mention that the Chicago manual is now in its 17th edition. Most of the changes are additions, admittedly, but plenty of old-time style is updated or excised. I bought the 13th edition in 1986. If I followed it strictly today I’m positive I would be accused of bad style in at least a few spots.
Logic cannot not be applied to language, and certainly cannot be applied to the way that formal, official style guides disagree on zillions of constructions. Style guides are needed because of the fact that language isn’t logical. There is no logical reason to place quotation marks before or after the punctuation in the first place, and even less to change the placement according to the type of punctuation. For consistency, someone has to lay down a decree superseding logic and personal opinion. That’s style.
Thanks for the correction. I should have left out mention of Ebonics (or AAVE) entirely.
Happy cake day!