When writers include quotations without fully explaining their significance, the work of interpretation falls on the reader’s shoulders. Not only does this risk misinterpretation, but it’s also a lot to ask of the reader.
In the following example taken from Birkenstein and Graff’s book on academic writing They Say / I Say, the author neither elaborates on the quotation nor offers context for the quoted author’s expertise:
Deborah Tannen writes about academia. Academics believe “that intellectual inquiry is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize, find fault, and attack.” I agree with Tannen. Another point Tannen makes is that . . .1
Without signposts from the writer, the reader is left wondering, which part of the quote does the author agree with? Is the author and/or Tannen presenting these ideas as cornerstones of academia (“Academics believe”)? Or is the author and/or Tannen calling these ideas into question? As well, the reader may wonder who Tannen is and what stake she has in the discussion.
To put it bluntly, the work of interpreting quotes can be frustrating for readers.
The change in writing style alone—from the main author’s to a quoted author’s—requires readers to shift their concentration and attend to a new mood, attitude, and voice. That can take some effort to translate.
In fact, the work of interpreting quotes can be so tiring for readers that some will admit to outright skipping over quotes as they seek to rejoin the author’s main narrative. In her guide to scholarly writing Revise, Pamela Haag observes that block quotations in particular can “have an ironic effect on some readers. [A writer] may be block quoting because the material is so vital, yet its appearance…can trigger a Pavlovian skim mode reaction in readers.”2 In other words, a writer’s intent to attribute special status to an idea by quoting it in full can sometimes be totally undermined by doing just that.
I’m not advocating for doing away with block quotes here. What I’d like to suggest is that when a writer does enough to prepare the reader for what’s to come in the quote, then the reader will be equipped with the information, perspective, and confidence they need to smoothly and seamlessly engage with the quoted material.
In the following revision, again in Birkenstein and Graff, the author offers plenty of commentary, interpretation, and explanation to illuminate the quote:
Deborah Tannen, a prominent linguistics professor, complains that academia is too combative. Rather than really listening to others, Tannen insists, academics habitually try to prove one another wrong. As Tannen herself puts it, “We are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry is a metaphorical battle,” that “the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize, find fault, and attack.” In short, Tannen objects that academic communication tends to be a competition for supremacy in which loftier values like truth and consensus get lost. Tannen’s observations ring true to me because I have often felt that the academic pieces I read for class are negative and focus on proving another theorist wrong rather than stating a truth . . .3
By including their own commentary before and after the quotation to guide the reader’s interpretation, the author has created what Birkenstein and Graff call a “quote sandwich.”
To me, the “bread” of the quote sandwich is crucial to the extent that I encourage writers to strategically assume that the reader will, in fact, skim quotes. I believe approaching quotes this way is a helpful exercise in strengthening the clarity of arguments and narrative purpose. The bologna is bologna. (Not really, but stay with me.)
Returning to the revised example, here’s how it would read if we assumed the reader skipped over the quote entirely:
Deborah Tannen, a prominent linguistics professor, complains that academia is too combative. Rather than really listening to others, Tannen insists, academics habitually try to prove one another wrong. As Tannen herself puts it, “We are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry is a metaphorical battle,” that “the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize, find fault, and attack.” In short, Tannen objects that academic communication tends to be a competition for supremacy in which loftier values like truth and consensus get lost. Tannen’s observations ring true to me because I have often felt that the academic pieces I read for class are negative and focus on proving another theorist wrong rather than stating a truth . . .
While the reader will certainly miss out on nuance, they will still be able to follow along with the author’s thought process. And when the reader is fully on board with the author’s thought process, they are better equipped to engage with the quoted material in an informed way. I would argue that when they encounter the quote, they will feel qualified for the task, and better take in the quote’s significance.
Carefully considering the “bread” of the quote sandwich will not only foreground your voice and strengthen narrative flow, but also improve the likelihood that readers will read the quote. Win, win!
Helpful Phrases For Interpreting Quotes
Introducing quotes:
- As X themself puts it,
- X agrees when they write,
- In their book Y, X writes,
- While writing about Y, X contends,
- X explains it this way:
Explaining quotes:
- In other words,
- In short,
- Essentially, X is arguing that
- X’s point is that
- What matters to me here is
Adapted from Cathy Birkenstein and Gerald Graff, They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing.4
Endnotes:
- Cathy Birkenstein and Gerald Graff, They Say / I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, Fourth Edition (New York and London: W. W. Norton and Company Press, 2018), 46.
- Pamela Haag, Revise (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2021), 147, Kindle Edition.
- Birkenstein and Graff, They Say / I Say, 48-9.
- Birkenstein and Graff, 47-8.
TARYN SIROVE 