333

This may or may not be a real TeX/LaTeX question but rather a general question on punctuation:

How are the different dashes - "-", -- "–" and --- "—" supposed to be used?

lockstep
  • 250,273
Kevin H. Lin
  • 3,433

7 Answers7

349

The grammar school version (for English usage) is:

  • - (known as an hyphen) between the elements of compound words
  • -- (known as an en-dash) for ranges (for example, "3–7" means "3 to 7")
  • --- (known as a em-dash) punctuation for digressions in a sentence—though how it differs from a parenthetical comment I have never known—which is why you don't see it much

As Charles notes in the comments, you should probably consult whatever style guide you use (or are required to use) for a more comprehensive and detailed treatment. Especially for the tricky cases.

MD004
  • 1,226
  • 29
    This is explained thoroughly on page 4 of the TeXbook, in case you want some more information on this topic. – Pieter Oct 06 '10 at 16:38
  • 3
    When referring to papers with multiple authors, say Atiyah and Bott, should it be Atiyah-Bott or Atiyah--Bott? – Kevin H. Lin Oct 06 '10 at 18:25
  • 1
    @Kevin: I don't generally use that constructions, but I'd guess a hyphen because you're using the authors as a compound identifier for the paper. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 06 '10 at 18:30
  • 7
    For papers you usually use "and": "A and B" or "A et al.". When referring to things named after multiple persons, use en dashes, e.g. "Knuth–Morris–Pratt algorithm", but "red-black tree". In doubt, consult Wikipedia. – Philipp Oct 06 '10 at 19:00
  • 1
    +1, a nice way to introduce them. But every style guide has its own nuances, e.g., Chicago (6.85) has the hard-to-parse guidance "The en dash is used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements is an open compound or when two or more of its elements are open compounds or hyphenated compounds". Actually, this rule makes a lot of sense when you've figured it out - it means you can use an en dash as a compound maker of lower precedence than the hyphen, which is sometimes useful to make it easier to parse complex compounds. But hardly anyone bothers. – Charles Stewart Oct 06 '10 at 19:10
  • 18
    @Kevin: There's a pretty strong preference for Atiyah--Bott, since Atiyah-Bott is how you would write the double-barelled surname. Then en dash suggests more distance. – Charles Stewart Oct 06 '10 at 19:19
  • @Charles: Yeah. This is a grammar school version. Authors that are at the level of using a detailed style guide certainly need to consult the guide they use. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 06 '10 at 21:13
  • 1
    Bringhurst recommends en dashes with spaces – like this – for parenthetical comments… – Seamus Feb 29 '12 at 10:09
  • (a) As Bringhurst is North American and the Chicago Manual of Style is US-American, I was wondering whether some of you might be able to provide a UK-based reference for this particular answer. (b) I'm not disputing that one can use the en-dash for juxtaposition of entities that are semantically on the same level and for ranges, but I'm curious about what British prescriptions say on this matter. – Lover of Structure Sep 13 '12 at 08:10
  • what are the ranges "3--7" ? – nutty about natty Apr 29 '13 at 18:22
  • 3
    @nuttyaboutnatty To indicate all the numbers from three to seven. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Apr 29 '13 at 23:31
  • 1
    There is little to no syntactic difference between a parenthetical digression and one indicated my em-dashes. Stylistically, however, they are quite different (according to the author's preferences) and may even be used within the same sentence to indicate different degrees of relevance. For instance, I tend to prefer placing digressions upon which an argument depends within em-dashes, and an argument or observation which is merely supplementary parenthetically. – Marshall Eubanks Oct 26 '14 at 21:20
  • The en dash -- is for ranges that encompass at least one value in between. Compare 3--7 with 3-4. The em dash can also be used in a sudden stop in speech, such as "It was such a---" "What?" as a dialogue between two characters. – Someone Apr 28 '20 at 14:09
152

The answers and comments I have seen so far are incomplete and not entirely accurate in some regards. Rather than hiding all the information in comments, here is a summary. Note that I'm listing only the cases that occur most frequently and that seem to raise the most questions. I am not saying that my answer is exhaustive. (For example, I'm omitting discussion of the various uses of dashes in dialogues or quoted speech because (1) they pop up rarely in the (La)TeX world as they are mostly relevant to copyeditors of fiction (who can be assumed to have learned the rules otherwise) and (2) their usage is rare and thus not necessarily governed by hard-and-fast, rigid rules.)

The em-dash (---) has very few recommended use cases nowadays.

  1. The most common generally accepted possible use case is before a name in a quotation that is attributed only to a person (that is: not quoted bibliographically), say, at the beginning of a paper or chapter.
  2. In US typography, parenthetical phrases are traditionally set off with em-dashes without surrounding spaces. (Some sources recommend "hair spaces" around the em-dash for this practice, but other sources recommend against that, and I don't see this commonly done by newspapers and magazines in the US.) This practice is recommended against by some style guides these days (typographer Robert Bringhurst indirectly calls the em-dash "Victorian"), and I agree. While you could describe this as a question of visual taste, one definite problem with em-dashes without surrounding spaces is that tracking (aka letter-spacing aka "stretching" in some TeX lingo) doesn't play well with this: interword spacing will increase uniformly for words separated by spaces but will remain fixed for words separated by an em-dash without surrounding spaces. Of course that would not apply to em-dashes surrounded by spaces (the NYTimes style guide recommends this, for this reason), but keep in mind that this makes for really fat typographic separation.

(Note that usage of either em- or en-dashes for parenthetical purposes includes many cases where you visually see only one em/en-dash, simply because of the implicit orthographic rule that the beginning or end of a sentence "eats" one member of the "dash-dash parenthesis symbol pair".)

The en-dash (--) has two frequent usages:

  1. As a modern punctuation mark for parenthetical phrases. The en-dash in this usage is always surrounded by spaces. This also works well with kerning (see above). For this parenthetical usage, the em-dash is more common in US typography, while the en-dash is more common in UK typography.
  2. As a hyphen-replacement, functioning as a semantic linking element in a compound word (most frequently: a compound noun) that binds together two elements more loosely than a normal-space-in-that-same-compound. This is very important: When I have a compound such as "pre-World War II", I really want it to appear as pre-–World␣War␣II (too bad Unicode en-dashes don't render correctly on this forum!) with standing in for a fixed (non-stretchable) space (this question is about how to produce such fixed-width spaces), because semantically the compound has the structure [pre [World War II]], because the "pre" modifies the entire compound word/expression "World War II", not just the word "World". That is: Don't look at simple rules telling you about hyphenated adjectives, prefixes, etc. for nouns (these are too complex); instead pay attention to the semantic structure, because this is the only thing that ultimately counts. We want a separator that separates orthographic words (= clusters of contiguous letters) a tad more than an ordinary space while still indicating that things belong together. If people were writing "pre-World War II" directly (with a hyphen, which is normally (not clearly on this forum though) shorter than or of equal length as an ordinary space), the immediate visual parsing experience would be to understand this structurally as [[pre World] War II], which is semantically incorrect. Note that linguistically the fact that English orthography doesn't (unlike German orthography) treat all linguistic words as orthographic words ("swimming pool" is one linguistic word but two English orthographic words) is what essentially necessitates this usage of an en-dash, which is entirely absent from German orthography. For example, we write things like "Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung"; here ordinary hyphens represent all levels of inner-compound connections. Even though the division between "Konrad" and "Adenauer" is tighter than the one between "Adenauer" and "Stiftung" (the semantic structure here is [[Konrad Adenauer]-Stiftung]), there is at least no illusion that "Adenauer" binds closer to "Stiftung" than to "Konrad" (which there would in English, if you used a space for the first gap and only a hyphen instead of an en-dash for the second gap). Note, the point here is that the en-dash has this effect, because it must be visually slightly wider than an ordinary space.

Q: Are there constraints against line-breaking around dashes?

  • A: parenthetical dashes: I believe to have seen line breaks before and after parenthetical dashes in the past, but when I recently checked a bunch of US magazines (such as the New Yorker, the Atlantic, and Harper's), I saw only line-final dashes in any column. This came to me as a surprise, but either there is variation or I was previously wrong about this. I don't see any reason against line-initial parenthetical dashes, but if they don't occur or only rarely occur, let's hereby note this observation. If other people have further insight on this, please contribute.
  • A: en-dashes functioning as a hyphen-replacement: These of course cannot occur line-initially.

(Now you might ask: Why would anyone want to forbid line breaks on either or both sides of a dash? I can think of two possible reasons: (1) Perhaps someone would want to treat all dashes like hyphens, by visual analogy. (2) One could think of the two hyphens in a parenthetical pair as an "opening hyphen" and a "closing hyphen" and by analogy with other parenthesis types forbid the former line-finally and the latter line-initially. But such a distinction is never made in practice.)

Wikipedia claims en-dash usage for "relationships and connections", but Chicago does not recognize that; this "relationships and connections" usage is IMO newfangled and not generally accepted. But then, note as a disclaimer that I don't agree with all of Chicago. (Because many of its statements are prescriptivist recommendations, but I am trying to be descriptivist. Prescriptivism can be good, but many recommendations I've read - here and elsewhere - are neither descriptively accurate nor backed up by argument.)

Hyphens (-):

  • For whenever most people think hyphens are used. (I could attempt to make an exhaustive list, but I think this doesn't belong here.)

Some thoughts and observations about page ranges:

  • I've read in various places that an en-dash is prescribed for page ranges (e.g. pp.~100--200), but note that such usage is by no means universal even in the US. Subjectively speaking, I think it is used more in English than in German, though. With this in mind, German usage could be changing, and I also wouldn't be surprised if technical subjects' literature is influenced by (La)TeX conventions. (The (La)TeX community tends to recommend an en-dash for page ranges.)
  • While some sources recommend an en-dash for page ranges, many sources are silent on this matter. Because an ordinary person might not notice an en-dash (vs a hyphen) in page ranges, I think that de-facto far more people use a hyphen (though this admittedly doesn't prove that it's better to do so).
  • In Germany I can say that for sure an ordinary hyphen is predominantly used for page ranges (though this does admittedly leave open the question of what "ideal" typographic practice would be).
    • While DIN 5008 supposedly prescribes an en-dash ("Halbgeviertstrich") for ranges, there is no mention of such usage in either the "Grammatik" volume of Duden or the official rules for the reformed orthography. Descriptively speaking, en-dashes between digits are overwhelmingly not used.
    • I believe that DIN 1505-2 doesn't mention or require an en-dash around digits
    • The en-dash is not taught to be used for juxtaposition of words of equal category (and in English this is also definitely fringe usage), so it shouldn't be obviously so for digit groups either.
  • Note that Unicode provides a so-called figure-dash (U+2012), which is designed to be of the same width as a digit. According to some people, this is what everybody "should" be using, but I would like to remind everyone that ultimately usage depends on the information level and acceptance of the various target communities). While I don't know how widespread the figure-dash is (I am fairly sure it is not widespread as of right now), I'd be curious to learn about this community's stance on this.
  • The Chicago Manual of Style's (16th ed.) does recommend an en-dash for ranges (6.78) [I disagree with this aesthetically], but its recommendations are consistent with the view that en-dashes (or figure-dashes) do not belong in between numbers in other cases: "A hyphen is used to separate numbers that are not inclusive, such as telephone numbers, social security numbers, and ISBNs." (6.77)

Note that Wikipedia offers some "prescriptivist poppycock" (that expression is taken from the Language Log blog, which I highly recommend): "The figure dash is used when a dash must be used within numbers (e.g. phone number 555‒0199). It does not indicate a range, for which the en dash is used [...]." It is actually quite unclear where these prescriptions come from. I definitely can say that such usage is not widespread, and I do not see an obvious reason: the hyphen doesn't have the same semantic status as a digit, neither in a digit string (where it acts as a separator) nor in a range (of page numbers, units in physics, ...). Semantically the only intuitive rule is that the separator should be wider than the digit separation (that is, wider than zero) and that it should ideally be narrower than other surrounding orthographic divisions, to make clear that the digit group is a close unit (on the phrase structure level). That is, it would be odd to use an em-dash in a page range (since a sentence containing that page range would then have the largest visual separator token be just that em-dash), but by the same reasoning an en-dash is also not appropriate. So, a hyphen seems entirely fine, and I am somewhat surprised that the oft-heard (in the (La)TeX community) statement that ranges necessitate an en-dash isn't supported by either solid references or a good linguistic argument that talks about tokens, orthography, and phrase structure. As for non-range digit groupings: dots and colons can also function as separating elements in a sequence of digits, but noone would ever think about wanting to set them in a monospaced font with equal-to-digit width.

  • 17
    Being German I cannot confirm that “an ordinary hyphen is used for page ranges”. What I do know, though, is that more than once I read that a Halbgeviertstrich is recommended [1, 2, 3]. Supposedly it is also recommended by the DIN 5008 [4]. – cgnieder Jun 16 '12 at 19:57
  • 2
    Personally I like the en-dash a a range indicator. To me a hyphen connects two parts of something to a whole, like parts of a telephone number, whereas the en-dash somehow (to me) reflects the nature of the range: two ends (the numbers) and something in between that's left out. (I hope I made myself clear - English's not my native language...) – cgnieder Jun 16 '12 at 20:06
  • @cgnieder Many thanks for your concrete references! I was judging from checking a few books (not TeX-related or technical ones, but other genres) and things looked like a hyphen, but it is very good to know about some more professional recommendations. (Though I'd still say that I don't know which type of hyphen is used most often in practice in professionally published books. I think descriptive surveys of actual use in typesetting aren't as common or well-known/publicized as I'd like them to be.) – Lover of Structure Jun 18 '12 at 06:00
  • 1
    @cgnieder As for your second comment (about the en-dash for ranges): Having that preference for en-dashes is fine, though I am not offended by just using a normal hyphen for that simple purpose. – Lover of Structure Jun 18 '12 at 06:05
  • @cgnieder See my edit about en-dashes in German. – Lover of Structure Jun 29 '12 at 16:48
  • 2
    I don't see why the Duden should give any typographic advice… it is about grammar after all. Also the DIN 1505-2 supposedly is about something completely different: Die DIN-Norm DIN 1505-2 hat die „Titelangaben von Dokumenten“ und „Zitierregeln“ zum Inhalt, not the usage of dashes. I wonder why you never (? I at least know of no reference) read typographic recommendations for the hyphen as a range indicator but always the en dash or three-to-em dash (depending on the font). – cgnieder Jun 29 '12 at 17:17
  • 1
    The range separator serves as a replacement for “to” which is different from all uses of the hyphen (or am I wrong?) IMHO good typography should reflect that. Which of course doesn't mean that it has to be used predominantly, obviously… – cgnieder Jun 29 '12 at 17:19
  • @cgnieder I do appreciate your content and discussion, but please don't speculate about what I'm "never" reading. – Lover of Structure Jun 30 '12 at 02:46
  • About the content: 1. The grammar Duden teaches people about punctuation marks. And the official orthographic rules (I haven't checked the latest version of the grammar Duden on this; I currently lack access to resources, but will be glad about input from others) do explicitly discuss usage of Bindestrich/hyphen and Gedankenstrich/en-dash. I don't think en-dash usage is solely a typographic matter: after all we're discussion symbol choice here. The fact that there is no discussion of en-dashes as range indicators provides one point of evidence for the discussion. – Lover of Structure Jun 30 '12 at 02:48
  • It is not unusual to expect such a publication to follow good typographic practice. Thus, such publications contain some implicit information about typography - look at their design, citation style, blockquote style, spacing around punctuation marks, etc. 3. As for DIN 1505-02, page ranges occur routinely in bibliographic data. 4. As for hyphen/dash usage as "to-replacement": Yes, but there are so many different use cases of hyphens/dashes (plz look them up, I won't reiterate them here) that it is not clear why to-usage should stand out. We could never differentiate so many usages.
  • – Lover of Structure Jun 30 '12 at 02:49
  • 1
    @cgnieder We must distinguish descriptive and prescriptive usage. As for descriptive usage: If I see en-dashes for ranges in neither the official orthographic rules nor the Duden nor in my physics or math books, nor in all/most other literature I own, then descriptively such usage does not or barely exist. As for prescriptions: According to what authorities "should" we use en-dashes for ranges, and why? To give you an argument: If I see something like "35-40 ml", I want the visual semantic grouping be [[35 40] ml], but the (relatively wide) en-dash makes it look like it's [35 [40 ml]]. – Lover of Structure Jun 30 '12 at 03:10
  • I'm sorry if I offended you. By "you" I meant the German "man" and not you specifically... I don't believe that this matter is solely a typographic one, either, but I believe the typographic reasons should not be omitted in the discussion. I'd gladly be proven wrong if someone can point us to where the Duden or the DIN 1505-2 discuss ranges. I for my part haven't found it. I have been talking about a single specific use of a dash: the range indicator. And that is where I disagree. – cgnieder Jun 30 '12 at 07:59
  • To take your last example, "35-40 ml": numbers and units are a strong unity. The "40" is meaningless without the "ml". "35-40 ml" is short for "35ml to 40ml", semantically [[35ml][40ml]], and in my eyes the hyphen disguises that fact whereas the en dash visualizes it. BTW: I actually like your post (and upvoted it). – cgnieder Jun 30 '12 at 08:04
  • A last thought: of course there are no authorities whatsoever that tell us what to do. Everybody is free to write as he (or she) thinks is right! – cgnieder Jun 30 '12 at 08:06
  • @cgnieder No problem - and I do like your argument about "35-40 ml" (though my taste still ultimately differs from yours on this). – Lover of Structure Jul 01 '12 at 03:50
  • 4
    +1 with reservations. I disagree with most of the opinions, but there is much excellent information here. It is simply false to say the em dash has "very few recommended use cases nowadays" - unless you interpret 'recommended' non-descriptively - several important guides in fact do make broad recommendations for using the em dash. – Charles Stewart Nov 10 '12 at 09:24
  • @CharlesStewart The parenthetical em-dash is indeed far more common in US style than the en-dash and recommended far more frequently than the en-dash for this use case; I just don't like it :-) but thankfully I'm not the only one. If you count the other common use cases for which the em-dash is recommended, the number is very low. In dialogue in novels, using the em-dash is one possible way of indicating hesitation or interruption in direct speech. Three-em-dashes are sometimes used in bibliographies to mean "same author(s)". Etc etc. But in scientific or ordinary prose it's rare. – Lover of Structure Nov 11 '12 at 05:20
  • On the topic of whether en-dashes can appear line-initially, I have always tried to avoid it, but I noticed that Bringhurst's Elements of Typographical Style puts some there (if you have the fourth edition handy, check out the middle of page 42). The text specifically talking about en-dashes is silent on the issue. – scorchgeek Oct 09 '16 at 19:14
  • En-dash and figure-dash are two separate entities. Figure-dash is used to separate digits in numbers. In English, about the only place you'll find this is in phone numbers, e.g. 331-555-1212. – Tom Nov 05 '17 at 23:17