I’m currently reading a brief written by my boss. He makes extensive use of quotation marks to emphasize words, or to put a sarcastic slant on them.
For example: The deputy then “testified” about what he was told.
That doesn’t seem right. I seemed to recall reading once that you should only use quotation marks when you’re actually quoting something.
He has a problem with commas, too, but that’s a different problem.
I believe it’s a common convention to put quotes around words you mean to have a sarcastic tone. Quoting to emphasize, however, is completely incorrect (in my experience).
In other words, I read: “He “testified” before the court” as sarcasm. He didn’t really testify.
When being sarcastic in person, you would make “air quotes” while saying the word in question.
The use of quotation marks to indicate suspicion or questionability is the result of a misunderstanding. The OP uses the example of somebody “testifying”, which is nonsense, because it is a matter of fact whether somebody is testifying or not. However, the deputy could quite legitimately have testified what “he was told” - here, the quotation is of the deupty’s contextualising of his statement.
Quotes are correct for sarcasm. They casts an ironic comment on the literal tuth of the word. Use for mere emphasis is incorrect and annoying.
Does your boss look like Chris Farley?
“No.”
The deputy was not able to travel to court for health reasons, so he delivered sworn testimony from a VAAAAN down by the RIVER.
No they don’t, at least not necessarily. They indicate that the word can be attributed to an individual, which may or may not imply irony, sarcasm or opinionatedness.
The use of quotes for emphasis is just plain wrong; one should use italics for emphasis if necessary, or underline if one is not working on the computer.
The use of quotes to indicate sarcasm, while acceptable in casual writing, seems terribly unprofessional to me. How widely is this brief going to be circulated?!
How about in the following context:
“Witness A” was seen by officers in his van down by the river. “Witness A” waved to the officers.
Are the quotation marks needed around “Witness A?”
I forgot to add, the text would not be a name, but actually “witness A.”
No. However, it would be correct in the following example:
‘It was stated that the man, referred to in court as “Witness A”, was seen by officers in his van down the river. Witness A waved to the officers.’
Using quotes ("") is just an old-fashion way of underlining and italicing. For instance, a lot of chat rooms disable editing feature - you can’t mix fonts. Italics, Bold, Underling and all combinations therein are all different fonts. Try typing in a text box in different fonts - impossible.
Generally, I would agree with you, but if “Witness A” was not in the original report but substituted by the editor for Kevin Spacey. All instances of Kevin Spacey would now say “Witness A”. This shows the reader that this is where an edit/substitute was done.
Well, in that case, it’s very bad editing, because it muddies the situation rather than clarifying it.
Chatrooms are not old-fashioned!!! I think quotation marks might be slightly older…
FWIW, typewriter syntax used underlining to indicate italics. And the use of asterisks for bolding still survives in ways - it’s realised by Mozilla mail when displaying plain text emails.
ouryL, I am afraid that quotes were never an acceptible substitute for italics or underlining.
ppl do it in chat rooms? RU serious? OMFG! ROTFLMAO!!!1!
Poppycock!!
How do you underline or italicize in notepad?
In that situation, italics are indicated by an underscore at each end of the target phrase, like so. Nobody is uncouth enough to want actual underlining, which is never necessary anyway 
Indicating emphasis using the leading and trailing underscore markers was pretty standard internet style back in the days. Quotes were never ever used for emphasis. Not even in the typewriter days. As said, underscoring was the common way to indicate italics. You’d know this if you’d ever written a term paper on a typewriter. When citing the titles of longer works, like books or albums, the rule was to underscore it. Today, you’d use italics, since you have them readily available. Shorter works, such as individual poems, magazine articles, or songs, always got put in quotes. It was a very important distinction, and you couldn’t just swap quotes for italics or underlines.
As for the OP, the use of quotes for sarcasm is fine. For emphasis, no.
AFAIK, underlining-implying-italics comes from the days of manual typesetting, where the only people who had access to the actual italics were the guys in charge of the printing process. In that situation, switching to italics was a change of font, in a very real physical way.
And try to never use quotation marks for a quotation beyond a single paragraph - use indentation instead. It’s easier to read (and actually, it’s similar to how the quotes work on boards like this).