Emphasis added / emphasis in original -- any default convention?

Paul

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 6:23:10 AM10/11/15

to

Often, a writer, A, quotes from text by B, to substantiate a point A is making. Suppose that some of this text that is particularly germane to A's argument is italicized.
Obviously, it's best practice for A to note by "emphasis in original" or "emphasis added" whether the decision to italicize was taken by A or B. However, sometimes such a note is omitted. If we see quoted italicized text, with no note on the emphasis, what is the default convention that the reader should assume (if any)? Should it be assumed that the emphasis is in the original or that A added it? Or is either equally likely?

Thank you,

Paul

LFS

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 6:32:39 AM10/11/15

to

The context should give you some indication.

Is the quotation especially relevant to the argument being presented by
A, an argument that might be less fundamental to B's work and thus not
emphasised by B?

Seeking out B's original work can be useful: A may have misunderstood
B's argument. I have, on occasion, been rather surprised to find my own
work cited to support an argument which it clearly countered or to which
it was irrelevant.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

Bertel Lund Hansen

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 6:32:58 AM10/11/15

to

Paul skrev:

Any change in the original text should be marked so it is clear
for the reader what has been changed. If no marker or the like is
present, I assume that we see a precise quote.

I don't think I have felt the need to change a quoted text, but
if I did, I would add "(emphasize by me)".

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 8:16:53 AM10/11/15

to

Though the rest of us, as Paul indicated, would write "[emphasis added]."

Don Phillipson

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 10:05:46 AM10/11/15

to

"Paul" <peps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79c8262d-8f90-4d54...@googlegroups.com...

> . . . If we see quoted italicized text, with no note on the emphasis,

> what is the
> default convention that the reader should assume (if any)?

English-speaking writers and editors usually rely on the Chicago Manual
of Style (sec. 10.41 ff.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

charles

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 10:55:38 AM10/11/15

to

In article <mvdqbm$b3n$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Paul" <peps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:79c8262d-8f90-4d54...@googlegroups.com...

> > . . . If we see quoted italicized text, with no note on the emphasis,
> > what is the
> > default convention that the reader should assume (if any)?

> English-speaking writers and editors usually rely on the Chicago Manual
> of Style (sec. 10.41 ff.)

I prefer the Oxford Manual of Style or The Times' Guide to English Style &
Usage - but then I'm a right Pondian

--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 11:58:27 AM10/11/15

to

On 2015-10-11 13:59:03 +0000, Don Phillipson said:

> "Paul" <peps...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:79c8262d-8f90-4d54...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> . . . If we see quoted italicized text, with no note on the emphasis,
>> what is the
>> default convention that the reader should assume (if any)?
>
> English-speaking writers and editors

in the USA and Canada

> usually rely on the Chicago Manual
> of Style (sec. 10.41 ff.)

Although the Chicago Manual is much better than the Oxford Style Manual
I believe the latter to be widely used by editors elsewhere.

--
athel

David Kleinecke

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 1:39:42 PM10/11/15

to

But if you are working with internet texts anything can happen. The
beginning and end of a quotation are often not marked in any fashion.
You are left to guess and I have encountered cases where I was unable
to decide who said what.

Most people writing today have not heard of any manual of style or even
the concept of a manual. And editors are not involved.

Bertel Lund Hansen

unread,

Oct 11, 2015, 2:00:30 PM10/11/15

to

David Kleinecke skrev:

> But if you are working with internet texts anything can happen.
> The beginning and end of a quotation are often not marked in
> any fashion. You are left to guess and I have encountered
> cases where I was unable to decide who said what.

That is the reason why I use indentation for quoted material
other than the text of the previous writer(s).

The paragraph reads:

Bla bla bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla bla

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

Traddict

unread,

Oct 20, 2015, 2:22:22 PM10/20/15

to

"Bertel Lund Hansen" <gade...@lundhansen.dk> a écrit dans le message de
groupe de discussion : mvddor$trj$1...@dont-email.me...

As has been noted, "emphasis added" seems to be the right formula, but,
besides, the "author's we" would probably sound better in such a case.

>
> --
> Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

Traddict

unread,

Oct 20, 2015, 2:22:23 PM10/20/15

to

"Bertel Lund Hansen" <gade...@lundhansen.dk> a écrit dans le message de
groupe de discussion : mvddor$trj$1...@dont-email.me...