by Natalia Iwanek
Over the past decade, there has been ongoing debate about the use of italics as a style choice for non-English words or phrases that may not be familiar to – what is often considered – the monolingual audience of the North American English-language writing, editing, and publishing industries. This is of particular interest to me as a multilingual person – and as an editor.
A variety of opinions exist. Some authors, editors, and publishers simply use italics (or quotation marks) as a style choice per their respective style guide, some use italics purposely to make a political statement, some feel that this decision is “othering” (the “process whereby individuals and groups are treated and marked as different and inferior from the dominant social group”), and some express concern about the accessibility of either style choice.
Undoubtedly, this is a complex and nuanced conversation.
What do the major style guides say?
Currently, most major style guides call for italics (or quotation marks) to set off non-English words in text.
For example, the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide uses italics for most uncommon non-English words, the American Psychological Association (APA) style guide italicizes non-English words (the first time) but avoids italics for common ones, while the Associated Press (AP) calls for quotation marks when using non-English words.
What does the 18th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) say?
The recently published 18th edition (2024) of The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) contains updated conventions on many topics, including italics (when dealing specifically with non-English words). However, this conversation was already taking place on CMOS Shop Talk as early as 2020.
(Note that access to the 2024 online version of CMOS comes with Editors Canada membership. More information can be found on the Editors Canada web page.)
Before continuing, let’s do a quick recap.
As a reminder, section 7.53, “Unfamiliar words and phrases from other languages,” in the 2017 version states, “Use italics for isolated words and phrases from another language unless they appear in Webster’s or another standard English-language dictionary” (CMOS 2017, 434).
Similarly, section 7.55, “Unfamiliar words and phrases from other languages,” in the 2024 version mentions that italics are used “for singling out non-English words and phrases in an English-language context.” It comes with a caveat that these italics are used for words “that do not appear in Merriam-Webster or that would be unfamiliar to many readers.”
In addition, like in the 2017 version (CMOS 2017, 434), the 2024 version mentions that words that are repeated regularly only require italics on the “first occurrence” but should retain italics for rare occurrences.
So why are italics used? Specifically, section 11.3, “Non-English words and phrases in an English context,” of the 2024 version draws attention to words that “would not normally be found in English and can help prevent a non-English word from being misread as an error.”
Now, let’s take a look at the changes.
Section 7.55 of the 2024 version of CMOS now mentions “that italics may not be appropriate for non-English words used as part of the vocabulary of a multilingual author, narrator, or character (as in fictional dialogue)” and suggests connecting with the author prior to making edits.
Further, section 11.4, “Italics in multilingual narratives and dialogue,” explains that in fiction, “using regular text for words from other languages can help establish a narrator’s or character’s authenticity.”
What exactly is the problem with italicizing non-English words?
Many words from various languages that have made it into the modern (Canadian and US) English-language lexicon are often no longer italicized or set off as “foreign.” Some examples include burrito, carte blanche, déjà vu, and bon voyage.
However, it might be helpful to think critically about which non-English words have been “naturalized into English” or anglicized, which ones have made it into our dictionaries (and are non-italicized), and which remain italicized. For example, if we consider literature geared toward a US audience, consider why words like monsieur (mister/sir in French), but not hija (daughter in Spanish), exist in Merriam-Webster when the US “has the second largest population of Spanish speakers in the world,” with 13% of the population speaking Spanish at home.
Consider which speakers of global languages (or even global varieties of English) experience linguistic discrimination, and which other languages are often considered “cute, sophisticated, stylish.”
From an inclusive language perspective, many opponents of italics (and quotation marks) as a style choice for non-English words argue that this practice only serves to perpetuate the marginalization of equity-deserving communities, as well as creating an “other.”
This is a political issue.
By italicizing (or placing quotation marks around) non-English words or phrases, we are drawing attention to something or someone that could be construed as seemingly strange, different – one that does not belong. In addition, this practice could be said to prioritize monolingual readers.
Authors who have spoken out against the use of italics include Chicana author Gloria Anzaldúa and Dominican US author Junot Díaz. Further, the work of many authors, such as Puerto Rican Giannina Braschi and her rule-breaking Spanglish novels, have made an impact on the publishing industry.
However, proponents of italics as a style choice believe that not italicizing could be seen as prioritizing bilingual readers and, therefore, neglecting monolingual readers.
What does this say about who we think our target audiences are?
Another point that must be mentioned is that there are also those who use italics very consciously, as a way to make a political statement. Describing the experience of writing in Yoruba and English, Nigerian author Jumoke Verissimo stated, “Knowing when I use the italics, I am inviting the reader to pause and reflect on the fact that they have stumbled on another world with all its flourishes. In my usage, I am therefore not consenting to othering, I am ordering the language as I intend it to be used.”
Finally, the use (or lack) of italics also leads to conversations about accessibility.
While many best practices of accessibility caution against the overuse of italics, as this can hinder readability, the lack of italics can also cause accessibility issues, especially in terms of comprehension for some readers.
As a disabled editor, I understand that accessibility is a nuanced conversation (which I discussed in a previous blog), especially when there may be various access needs. Perhaps then, one idea could be focusing on accessibility for all types of readers, akin to universal design (“the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design”).
Who sets the rules and norms of language?
This style conversation would not be complete without considering the rules and norms of languages in general – and considering who creates and enforces these rules.
As a multilingual immigrant – who admittedly only edits in English but is currently preparing for translation studies – this is a topic very close to my heart.
My main interest lies in linguistic hybridity, especially in border regions and in the diaspora. I myself speak a variety of hybrid languages and have lived in – and currently live in – border regions my entire life. My personal language nuances reveal a great deal about who I am, where I come from, and how I express myself.
Individuals like myself are undoubtedly familiar with various organizations tasked with language norms and traditions, such as the France-based L’Académie française and the Spain-based La Real Academia Española (RAE). While there is no one governing body for English, the Oxford English Dictionary remains key in many places, such as Canada. (The second edition of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is standard here at BoldFace.)
However, debate about what constitutes a “proper” way to speak or write a language (including style choices, such as italics) cannot be separated from conversations about the intersections of identities, such as socio-economic class, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, status, etc.
They also cannot be separated from conversations about code switching (the “process of shifting from one linguistic code (a language or dialect) to another, depending on the social context or conversational setting”) – especially for equity-deserving groups in majority cultures – and cultural frame switching (“the process of bicultural or multicultural individuals accessing different culture-specific mental modules or changing their perspective of the world, depending on the language that is used”).
Finally, they cannot be separated from conversations about the processes of colonialism and imperialism, especially when these language norms are applied to those under (former) colonial and imperial rule. A resource on the topic of language and post-colonialism in the (mainly East) African context is Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature by Kenyan author Ngugi wa Thiong’o.
In Decolonising the Mind, the author, (“who [often] committed himself to writing in Kikuyu“), stated, “The language of African literature cannot be discussed meaningfully outside the context of those social forces which have made it both an issue demanding our attention and a problem calling for a resolution” (2005, 4).
One of the most recent conversations about these language norms involved French Malian singer Aya Nakamura’s performance during the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.
Despite facing racism and xenophobia due to being born in Mali, Nakamura performed in front of L’Académie française, “us[ing] slang like verlan [“a variety of French slang in which the syllables are inverted . . . and also incorporating Arabic words and phrases”] . . . and West African dialects like Nouchi.”
During her performance, Nakamura sang a medley of original songs, as well as an interpretation of the song, “For Me Formidable” by French Armenian singer Charles Aznavour. Rebutting her critics, Nakamura sang lyrics, which also referenced the vocabulary of famed French playwright Molière.
In the end, how do we make a style choice?
This discussion of what affects language norms and how these, in turn, affect our style choices, leaves us with more questions than answers.
Is there a clear solution? It does not appear so. (And should there even be one?) Proposed ideas, such as using footnotes instead, have been criticized as being distracting to readers. Much also depends on the style guide being used, publisher specifications, author preferences, and whether the text is fiction or non-fiction.
Despite these considerations, in my editing work, I personally try to draw the attention of writers to the inclusive language nature of this problem, namely that language rules are meant to be bent and broken when they no longer serve society, especially for those who are facing (often intersecting forms of) oppression. Language is never neutral, and the language – and style – choices we make have very real consequences for real-life individuals – especially those in equity-deserving communities.
On a final note, you may have noticed that this particular article has broken long-standing traditions and norms in terms of italics. And while in the editing world, there is no definite answer for the italics debate, I stand by my choice for this article.
Natalia Iwanek (she/they) is the co-editor-in-chief of Boldface. She enjoys considering the nuances of language, style, and accessibility. She was a recipient of the Editors Canada President’s Award for Volunteer Service in 2021 and 2022.
This article was copy edited by Cindy Liang (she/her), a freelance copy editor and undergrad student in English and Book and Media Studies at the University of Toronto.
BoldFace 