-
Is it acceptable to correct spelling errors when quoting written works?
-
Along the same line of reasoning, when writing in a regionalized version of the English language, such as in Canada, is it acceptable to change the spelling of British or American English words to the accepted Canadian spelling when quoting a written work?
- The accepted method is to use [sic], indicating the error was in the original, not in your transcription. Example:
“He slamed [sic] the door in her fase [sic].”
See this, second definition. Basically it’s your way of saying “I know there’s a spelling (grammar, etc) error here, but since I’m quoting, I want to leave it in, but I don’t want you the reader to think I made the mistake”.
- I doubt it. The spelling differences between British, Canadian and American English are pretty minor (minour?), so there’s usually no chance of confusion
I’ll often “correct” things to American English, esp. when the quoted material is likely to have originally been delivered orally. For instance, if a British source were quoting a quip by whoever – Christ Rock, say – and they quote him as saying something about “the colour grey,” I’ll change it back to “the color gray,” since that’s how he’d spell it if he were writing it down.
OTOH, my usage is mostly casual/vernacular [puzzle stuff], and I don’t follow the rigorous citation rules I learned in academia.
It is also acceptable in the first instance to make the correction in brackets, turning “He slamed the door in her fase” to “He [slammed] the door in her [face].”
This is less common than using [sic]. It is more commonly used (usually in journalism) for clarifying passages with pronouns. So if for example the text was “The Widow Simmons sought out the governor in his office to beg him to intervene. He slammed the door in her face.” and you were only quoting the second sentence you might write “[The governor] slammed the door in her face.”
For the second, I wouldn’t ever change a regional spelling unless it was so far off of “standard” that leaving it unchanged would make it overly difficult for the reader to figure out the word. In which case I would again [bracket] the changed word.
Coming from writing academic texts on musical subjects: Never change anything without identifying it as an editorial alteration, except for very obvious printing/typographic errors. International variations in spelling and terminology should be retained, and different variant of name spellings should also be kept.
Oh, and sic should always be italicised. But don’t use it just to flag up minor errors - if they’re minor enough to be corrected as I’ve suggested, then do so, and if they’re worse, find an alternative quotation (big errors in the quotation hardly encourage confidence in its general reliability).
However - as twickster points out, these are rigid academic rules. Nonetheless, they’re designed to rule out any possible ambiguity, and so are a useful guideline for how to approach more general writing.
In that situation, I’d add a bracketed ‘translation’ or explanation, rather than jettisoning the original. E.g. (elections still on the mind), quoting somebody on the America electoral process, you may need to indicate that “the state’s voters decide on how the [electoral] college votes are assigned”.
Shouldn’t journalists quoting the spoken word adhere to a similar standard for very obviously misspoken/mispronounced words? I frequently see the use of sic where what the speaker meant to say is obvious from the context. It seems like the only purpose the use of sic serves when the intent of the speaker is clear is to draw attention to the mistake.
I believe if you change anything in the quote from the original it should be in square brackets.
So if the authentic quote is “He told me all about it.” You might want to flesh that out by building in the context… like so “[James Smith] told me all about [the footbal game].” or “He [James Smith] told me all about it [the football game]”.
With mark-up you can do subquotes asides and translations that pop-up as tooltips, and so provide any necessary explication without mangling the original quote:
“<span title=“James Smith”>He</span> told me all about <span title=“the football game”>it</span>.”
Doesn’t work with UBB, but when you mouseover “He” a little tooltip should pop-up with “James Smith” in it if you put that in a regular document and viewed it in a browser.
It is a general rule in journalism that the paper corrects the problems of the person communicating or attempting to communicate. Letters to the editor are usually proofed before going into print.
Much the same goes for verbal quotes. If the person makes a grammar or syntax error, generally the journalist quoting him will correct him unless it really messes up the story (for example: A story on the quaint way of talking on the south edge of the county or something).
A few papers run the letters and quotes as is, and fewer still put in the “sic”. Most feel that responding like that merely makes the paper look pompus and/or patronizing.
The thinking regarding correcting the errors is that no one is perfect and we could all use a little help on occasion when it comes to spelling, grammar, syntax, etc.
TV