An important punctuation issue!

[pixiecrinkle]

From the Chicago Manual of Style's Q&A page:

Q. My question is, is there any standard for the usage of emoticons? In particular, is there an accepted practice for the use of emoticons that include an opening or closing parenthesis as the final token within a set of parentheses? Should I (1) incorporate the emoticon into the closing of the parentheses (giving a dual purpose to the closing parenthesis, such as in this case. :-) (2) simply leave the emoticon up against the closing parenthesis, ignoring the bizarre visual effect of the doubled closing parenthesis (as I am doing here, producing a doubled-chin effect :-)) (3) put a space or two between the emoticon and the closing parenthesis (like this: :-) ) (4) or avoid the situation by using a different emoticon (Some emoticons are similar. :-D), placing the emoticon elsewhere, or doing without it (i.e., reword to avoid awkwardness)?

A. Until academic standards decline enough to accommodate the use of emoticons, I’m afraid CMS is unlikely to treat their styling, since the manual is aimed primarily at scholarly publications. And the problems you’ve posed in this note give us added incentive to keep our distance. (But I kind of like that double-chin effect.)

While I agree that the purpose of the CM is for academic discourse, I also think that there should be grammatical standards, even in more casual communication. Plus, I have agonized over this vry question myself. I personally usually do option 2 because I feel the emoticon itself is a separate element from the closing parenthesis. What do you think?

Comments

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

I use 2 or 3. I have done enough LISP programming to be very sensitive to the lack of a close-paren. I will not knowingly leave it out.

[pixiecrinkle.livejournal.com]

Same with me, only it's Java and C++ and the {} characters. :-)

I often joke that if anyone else reads notes that I've taken during a meeting or the like, they can't make sense of them, because they are a conglomeration of programming languages, html, weird shorthand that involves dropping the vowels out of most words, and abbreviations that only make sense to me.

[wonderfroggy.livejournal.com]

I usually end up using #1 but it always bothers me... But then again, I've always had terrible grammar.

[xaviermusketeer.livejournal.com]

I almost always use option 3.

[kateo.livejournal.com]

Me too! (Like this! :-) )

[automat76.livejournal.com]

i completely agree. many styles make, what i philoshophically consider to be, exceptions to the most purist grammar rules for the sake appearances. let me digress into my incomplete memory of styles.*

*i FIRMLY believe that apostrophes should be reserved for TWO reasons in english:
1. replacement of missing characters in phrasing (i.e., "i love the '80s!").
2. designation of a possessive (NOT "i love the 80's!" ...but "i love the '80's prowress for new wave pop!" is acceptable).

for example:
1. there are two v's in velvet.
2. there are two "v"s in velvet.
3. there are two vs in velvet.
[my rule here observes the fact that usage of italics may not always be possible, and that characters should dictate the separation and presentaion of language -- i.e., the use of quotation marks should always be an acceptable replacement for the italized typeface ... think old school typewriters.]

many styles (especially AP) will adopt a preference that minimizes the number of characters use to convey an idea -- meaning (and, while i write this, i recall a statement i once heard which refers to the em-dash as the "poor man's colon" -- with this i disagree!) that spaces are, by rule, often eliminated. so the space between the ending emoticon and end parenth would be omitted.

so, without being a representative of a specific style guide, i believe that appearance should guide usage of emoticons (space = good). i say, "use the space because it is more visually discernable."

whew. :-)

[pixiecrinkle.livejournal.com]

The appearance thing is a good point. I'm usually one to argue for conciseness (concisity?) but I do agree that the extra space for the sake of meaning is valuable.

About the velvet example though: I was prepared to argue that the quote marks were more acceptable because of the universality (we learned that in junior high--to avoid italics except to indicate titles of publications, movies, etc.) but then when I got to thinking about web writing I realized that I'm probably wrong now on that point. Screen readers can pronounce a word differently on hitting an [em] tag (I shudder to think of what gets lost with the [i] tags still in use!) but I'm not sure what they do when hitting quote marks. I should look into that.