How do you quote colloquial speech?

[Alex Franke]

I saw an article in the local newspaper over the weekend that quoted someone as saying, "we have a pond -- about half-an acre." If I were the writer I probably would have changed it to "about a half acre." (For the younger readers out there, a "newspaper" is an old-fashioned paper document -- sort-of a printed out news feed -- that's often delivered to the home by a human. )

I'm pretty sure this topic is debated among writers, and I'm interesting in y'alls opinions here . Where do you draw the line when directly quoting colloquial speech (or even mistakes in speech)? On one hand you risk stereotyping and sounding like you're writing a novel, and on the other hand you take something away from the original quote and cast the person being quoted in a different light.

As an example, if you were reporting (in an article, on a blog, or even in a forum post) that someone said exactly "There ain't nothin' y'all can do 'bout that. It's un-friggin'-believable.", how would you change it if at all? Would you also change "half-an acre" to something else? Would you use brackets to indicate the change?

Just curious... Thoughts?

[Uncle Cracker]

If it's a quote, I wouldn't change it. For obvious grammatical errors, it is common when quoting to insert the abbreviation (sic) behind the erroneous passage, but still within the quote. This signifies "spoken in context", and for lack of a better description, means to the reader that "I know this is wrong, but that's how the idiot said it...".

[tfischer]

I agree. If it's quoted, you don't change it (although I think you could render things like " 'bout" as "about" without changing anything. If you don't want to directly quote them, then you should paraphrase without quotes.

-Tim

[germdoc]

If it's a quote, I wouldn't change it. For obvious grammatical errors, it is common when quoting to insert the abbreviation (sic) behind the erroneous passage, but still within the quote. This signifies "spoken in context", and for lack of a better description, means to the reader that "I know this is wrong, but that's how the idiot said it...".

Actually, the word "sic" is not an anagram; it's from the Latin for "thus", as in what JW Booth shouted after he shot Lincoln: "Sic semper tyrannus", or "Thus be it always to tyrants".

[cgallery]

Reporters change quoted colloquial speech all the time. They've certainly done it to me. I'd sorta rather they not. I'd like to know that when I'm reading quoted text, I'm reading the exact, uttered words (in the correct order).

[cabinetman]

Someone said (and I can't remember who...and you can quote me on that)..."You can quote me all you want, but quote me correctly".
.

[JR]

I agree that anything within quotes should be the exact words used by the speaker. It's proper to replace words only when they would be offensive to a typical reader. In that case the writer's replacement is put in parentheses. For instance if the speaker had used an offensive word similar to friggin', you might use the exact quote, but instead of using the offensive word, use "friggin'" in parentheses.

You will often see journalists make their own expression rather than the full quote, completing the thought with a partial, or edited, quote. "Franke, expressing amazement that there seems to be no recourse, said, "It's un-...-believable."" Integrity demands the writer make a good-faith effort to faithfully represent the quoted speaker's intent.

JR

[Alex Franke]

What about if it's a clear or embarrassing mistake, or unintended malapropism? The word "nucular" (for nuclear) comes to mind.

Or, as another example if I came up with a very meaningful and poetic quote during an interview about "my first desktop computer in the 1890's" I think I would want a reporter to correct the year but leave the quotation intact...

In the past, I've been offered the chance to review direct quotes and fix them up a bit if necessary, but that hasn't always been the case.

[Uncle Cracker]

Actually, the word "sic" is not an anagram; it's from the Latin for "thus", as in what JW Booth shouted after he shot Lincoln: "Sic semper tyrannus", or "Thus be it always to tyrants".

I knew of the Latin origin, but it has become widely accepted in literary circles as an anagram, and "spoken in context" describes the usage well, so I went with the flow...

When G.W. was in, that's what we saw everyplace... sic... sic... sic...

[OpaDC]

Generally, I say quote verbatim. There are exceptions though when it is an obvious mistake.

What about if it's a clear or embarrassing mistake, or unintended malapropism? The word "nucular" (for nuclear) comes to mind. Leave this as is, says something about the speaker to me, just like reconize instead of recognize.

Or, as another example if I came up with a very meaningful and poetic quote during an interview about "my first desktop computer in the 1890's" I think I would want a reporter to correct the year but leave the quotation intact... An obvious mistake that I would fix.

[Alex Franke]

I always thought that "[sic]" was used just for quoting other written material... Now that I think about it, I don't know why you couldn't use it for spoken quotations, too.

It seems, though, that it's often (unfortunately) used to poke fun at the original source, or even to make an editorial statement -- something like "in the spirited meeting, senators from both parties discussed [sic] several items..." I wonder if this interpretation weights into writers' decisions about using it. If it's likely to be interpreted as commentary, then that's an argument for paraphrasing or correcting... (previous example doesn't apply here because it's pretty clearly commentary)

BTW, I've also heard "spelling is correct" suggested as a definition of sic.

[Kristofor]

The pond is about half an acre (in size). (not half-an)
The field is about half a mile (long). (not half-a)

I think the use of a indefinite article is acceptable in those lines.

In general in a quote you should not fix grammar, phrasing, etc. with few exceptions. JR mentioned offensive language already. Another common case is replacing a pronoun in a quote with a reference to the object in question (inside brackets). This happens a lot when the it or he was from a previous sentence that isn't included in the quote. Outside of those types of conventions I don't see how you can call it a quote if you're not actually quoting the speaker...

Kristofor
Who loves to grab a pail or is it a bucket when he takes his son to play in the crick or is it creek...

[430752]

when I write for legal purposes, I quote exactly, whether colloquially or with grammatical errors or spelling errors, since I quote both written and spoken words and phrases. If I want to make an argument using a more common vernacular, which I find helpful and non-offensive even in a legal setting, I set off my statement by saying something like "plaintiff's argument, put colloquially, is like a stab in the dark" or "to put it colloquially, defendant's argument is like a dog that won't hunt". I often argue with others whether it is appropriate to speak colloquially with judges and arbitrators, but I figure that they're people too and that sometimes a colloquialism says it better and faster than using the full English. And, I do use the full English phraseology either just before or after my use of the colloquial.

I dunno, just me maybe.

[Uncle Cracker]

BTW, I've also heard "spelling is correct" suggested as a definition of sic.

Spelling isn't correct, maybe...

[RayintheUK]

If I were the writer I probably would have changed it to "about a half acre."

More correctly: "about an half acre," if that was the phrase you chose. Some of the other examples are a little more elegant, though.

Ray.