Millennials might not have been the first generation to feel the need to express surprise and disbelief in writing by smashing a group of question and exclamation marks together. Had you ever heard about interrobangs before? Did you know they are as old as 61 years old? Read this article from the Grammarly blog to find out everything you need to know about this non standard punctuation mark and how to use it.

What Is an Interrobang?! Definition and Examples

Most of the punctuation marks we know and love have been around for centuries, but can you believe that’s not the case for the wild and whimsical interrobang‽

Invented in 1962, this punctuation mark combines the exclamation mark and the question mark into one fancy doodad. Although it’s lesser known than most punctuation types and not often used, it’s a fun trick you can use to convey a question in an excited and energized way.

But what does the interrobang do? And how can you use it to spice up your writing? Let’s interrogate the interrobang so you can give your writing a little extra flair.

What is an interrobang?

An interrobang [in-TER-eh-bang] is a nonstandard double punctuation mark that combines the functions and glyphs of an exclamation mark (!) and a question mark (?) into one form: ‽. It indicates a sentence that is both a question and an exclamation, expressing surprise or disbelief.

The interrobang gets its name from the punctuation it’s intended to combine—interro is from “interrogation point,” the technical term for question mark, and bang is printers slang for the exclamation mark.

Superimposing both punctuation marks into a single glyph signifies an exclamatory sentence that is a question. This means the interrobang is best used to end a rhetorical question or conclude a simultaneous exclamation and question. It is sometimes called an “interabang” or “exclamation question mark.”

The word interrobang was coined by advertising executive Martin K. Speckter. Frustrated with copywriters’ tendency to combine exclamation and question marks to yield a surprised or rhetorical question, he offered a solution to replace this “ugly, jury-rigged construction,” and the interrobang was born.

You’ve likely come across the improvised punctuation before, written simply as a back-to-back exclamation mark and question mark, like this: !? or ?!

Still, this is the only way to employ the interrobang in everyday writing, as there is no dedicated key for the glyph on standard keyboards. As such, most writers continue to communicate the sentiment the interrobang expresses by using !? or ?! concurrently, just as they did before the mark’s official invention.

When to use an interrobang

Since the interrobang has such a quirky punctuation personality, it can be challenging to know when it’s appropriate to use one. However, if you enjoy using unique and expressive punctuation, this offbeat character has obvious appeal.

The interrobang will always come at the end of a sentence. Most often, interrobangs are used to convey a sense of surprise or disbelief or a combination of both in the form of a question. It adds energy to a question, resulting in either shocked incredulity (“She said what to Martin‽”) or an excited inquiry (“They won a trip to Spain from a radio show‽”).

Still uncertain about when it’s appropriate to use the interrobang? Here are three cases when it makes sense to use this combined character:

1 Rhetorical questions with emphasis: Interrobangs are ideal when you’re asking a rhetorical question that is meant to be particularly emphatic. They can add a visual cue to communicate extra intensity, as in “What were you thinking‽”

2 Combining a question and an exclamation: If a statement is both a question and an exclamation, the interrobang can represent this dual nature, as in “You published a book‽”

3 Expressing strong emotion: Interrobangs are especially appropriate when you want to convey a heightened sense of emotion or astonishment, as in “He really said that about his own child‽”

Although the interrobang is certainly a fun and expressive mark of punctuation, it’s crucial to note that it is not a standardized form, and some style guides and formal scenarios may discourage its use. If you decide to use one, make sure you’re aware of your audience and that it’s apt for the context.

How to include an interrobang

Since the interrobang is not included on standard keyboards, learning how to type one takes a little extra effort. Here are several ways to write or type an interrobang:

Write an interrobang: If you are putting pen to paper, writing an interrobang is easy. First, write a traditional question mark at the end of your sentence. Then, draw a straight line through it to signify the exclamation mark. No second period or point is needed!

Type an interrobang with Google Docs: Under the “Insert” menu select “Special characters” and then search for “interrobang: in the search bar. Click the glyph to insert in your text.

Type an interrobang with Unicode: If you use Unicode (the text-encoding standard where each letter, digit, or symbol is assigned a numeric value), you can easily type interrobangs. Simply use the code U+203D. This can be achieved by pressing the Alt key, then pressing the plus sign (+) key, and typing the code U+203D. Release the Alt key, and your interrobang should appear.

Typean interrobang with the Character Palette in macOS: You can readily find an interrobang symbol on the Character Palette, which is included on macOS. To do so, press the Ctrl key, then press Cmd, and then press the space bar. This will open up a menu with various emojis and symbols. Type “interrobang” into the search box, select the interrobang symbol, and this will add it to your document.

Typing an interrobang without any key code: If you are unable to employ a key code through Unicode or through the macOS Character Palette, you can still include an interrobang by copying and pasting it from another document or web page. Simply highlight the glyph, right-click it, copy it, and then right-click again in your document to paste it.

Interrobang examples

To make things even clearer for you, let’s take a look at several sentence examples where interrobangs are used correctly.

Henry’s leaving the company after only two months‽

What do you mean you lost the keys to my apartment‽

Why on earth would Wendy do that‽

You’re telling me you’ve never seen an episode of Seinfeld‽

How could you forget our anniversary‽

Dad ate the last slice of pizza after I told him I wanted it‽

You’re really wearing that to the party‽

Oxymoron, a Greek term combining the words for “sharp” and “foolish,” has been adopted in English to refer to inadvertently contradictory or incongruous mash-ups of terms such as “military intelligence” and “jumbo shrimp” — a class known as subjective oxymora (that latter word is the pedantic-looking plural) because they are not literally at odds with each other.

However, the original connotation is of an evocative paradox deliberately framed by a writer — an objective oxymoron. One of the most well-known examples is William Shakespeare’s line “Parting is such sweet sorrow,” from Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet exults in the bittersweet anguish generated by the lovers’ separation. Shakespeare provided a short list of literary oxymora in this earlier passage from the same speech:

“O heavy lightness! Serious vanity!
Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms!
Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health!”

The Bard employed oxymora on other occasions, including in Hamlet (“I must be cruel, only to be kind”), in Julius Caesar (“fearful bravery”), and in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (“A tedious brief scene . . . very tragical mirth”). Likewise, John Donne wrote of “beggarly riches,” Herman Melville of “a careful disorderliness,” John Milton of “darkness visible,” and Alexander Pope of a “bookful blockhead,” and Lord Tennyson ventured of his Lancelot that “faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.”

Classic authors do not have a monopoly on oxymora, though; contemporary coinages are often more than subjective punch lines like “responsible government.” Here are some other recent examples that might inspire you to convey original ideas in phrases that are more than the sum of their parts:

alone together: said, perhaps, of two people who share a physical space but are emotionally isolated from each other

cheerful pessimism: a description of a person who blithely notices and remarks on the dark cloud behind every silver lining

eloquent silence: a lack of response from someone that nevertheless clearly conveys that person’s attitude

hellish paradise: an environment designed to make inhabitants or visitors feel bliss but is, to the more perceptive among them, unnerving in its illusory promise

sad smile: a mild expression of superficial cheer that does not mask melancholy or sorrow

sublimely awful: a reference to something that is so bad, it arouses ironic delight

wise fool: a person of supposed mental weakness more shrewd than he or she seems at first

Oxymoron, a Greek term combining the words for “sharp” and “foolish,” has been adopted in English to refer to inadvertently contradictory or incongruous mash-ups of terms such as “military intelligence” and “jumbo shrimp” — a class known as subjective oxymora (that latter word is the pedantic-looking plural) because they are not literally at odds with each other.

However, the original connotation is of an evocative paradox deliberately framed by a writer — an objective oxymoron. One of the most well-known examples is William Shakespeare’s line “Parting is such sweet sorrow,” from Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet exults in the bittersweet anguish generated by the lovers’ separation. Shakespeare provided a short list of literary oxymora in this earlier passage from the same speech:

“O heavy lightness! Serious vanity!
Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms!
Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health!”

The Bard employed oxymora on other occasions, including in Hamlet (“I must be cruel, only to be kind”), in Julius Caesar (“fearful bravery”), and in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (“A tedious brief scene . . . very tragical mirth”). Likewise, John Donne wrote of “beggarly riches,” Herman Melville of “a careful disorderliness,” John Milton of “darkness visible,” and Alexander Pope of a “bookful blockhead,” and Lord Tennyson ventured of his Lancelot that “faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.”

Classic authors do not have a monopoly on oxymora, though; contemporary coinages are often more than subjective punch lines like “responsible government.” Here are some other recent examples that might inspire you to convey original ideas in phrases that are more than the sum of their parts:

alone together: said, perhaps, of two people who share a physical space but are emotionally isolated from each other

cheerful pessimism: a description of a person who blithely notices and remarks on the dark cloud behind every silver lining

eloquent silence: a lack of response from someone that nevertheless clearly conveys that person’s attitude

hellish paradise: an environment designed to make inhabitants or visitors feel bliss but is, to the more perceptive among them, unnerving in its illusory promise

sad smile: a mild expression of superficial cheer that does not mask melancholy or sorrow

sublimely awful: a reference to something that is so bad, it arouses ironic delight

wise fool: a person of supposed mental weakness more shrewd than he or she seems at first

Like every month, the Chicago Manual of Style, our style guide of reference, publishes new questions and answers to clarify gray areas, expand explanations, or address topics that are not addressed by the CMOS. Here are January’s Q&As!

New Questions and Answers

Q. Should we apply headline-style capitalization to band names and other proper names containing prepositions? Is it Rage against the Machine or Rage Against the Machine, for example? Thank you!

A. Good question! Normally, yes, the capitalization rules for titles of books and other works (as described in CMOS 8.159) would apply equally to other capitalized names, including names of organizations and musical groups.

Accordingly, articles (a, an, the), common coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor), and prepositions (of, for, with, etc.) would all be lowercased in the middle of a name. For example, the National Institutes of Health, Sly and the Family Stone—and Rage against the Machine.

But we’d allow an exception in that last case. Against may be a preposition, but it’s just as long as Machine, putting lowercase at odds with the rest of the name. And the sources that have written about that band would have tended to follow some variation of AP style (the main US style for journalists), which capitalizes prepositions of four letters or more. “Rage Against the Machine” is therefore more likely than “Rage against the Machine” to look right—at least to anyone who hasn’t just edited a forty-five-page bibliography to conform to Chicago style.

Q. What is the stance of CMOS on single-letter abbreviations for days of the week? In US higher education, the single-letter abbreviations (M, T, W, R, F, S, U) are ubiquitous, though I find no mention of these abbreviations being codified (ISO uses numbers). In prose, I often find myself using these abbreviations in lists of upcoming deadlines.

A. CMOS doesn’t cover those single-letter abbreviations, but we’d consider them to be a convenient shorthand. In the same way, “1/5” can be a handy way of writing January 5.

But because the meaning of “U” and “R” especially may not be clear, and because “1/5” means May 1 for many readers, we don’t recommend either of those forms in formal writing. Where brevity is the main consideration, our preference would be for Su, M, Tu, W, Th, F, and Sa. For those options and two others, see CMOS 10.40. For all-numeral dates, see CMOS 9.35.

Q. Sorry if I’ve overlooked a CMOS (or Q&A) answer to this question. I’m reviewing an organization’s bylaws, which contain several instances of a number spelled out followed by the number as a numeral in parentheses: e.g., “two (2).” I think parenthetical numerals are pointless redundancies. Does CMOS have a rule or preference related to this?

A. CMOS doesn’t cover this, but we agree with you, as does legal scholar and grammarian Bryan Garner: “The repetition of numbers by spelling them out and then using numerals typifies legalese and should never be used outside legal drafting. . . . Even in modern legal documents it’s largely uncalled for—the convention harks back to the days of legal scribes, who doubled words and numerals to prevent fraudulent alterations (words controlled over numerals).” See Garner’s Modern English Usage (Oxford, 2022), under “Numerals (G).”

Garner’s parenthetical observation that “words controlled over numerals” is interesting. In “two (3),” for example, the mistake would almost certainly be with the 3 and not the two (it’s easy to press a 1 or a 3 when a 2 is intended). That parenthetical numeral is subject not only to “fraudulent alterations” but to typos.

Q. I recently wrote a book where some headings listed tasks and challenges. For example, “Task 1, Learn as Much as You Can about the Disease” and “Challenge 1, Adopt a New Attitude.” Someone told me the punctuation was wrong and the commas should have been colons. I think that either commas or colons are correct. Am I right?

A. You are right—either mark is correct, but a colon isn’t the only alternative to a comma:

Task 1: Learn as Much as You Can . . .
Task 1. Learn as Much as You Can . . .
Task 1—Learn as Much as You Can . . .
Task 1, Learn as Much as You Can . . .

Those examples are listed in descending order of effectiveness. A comma would be most appropriate as sentence punctuation (and we’re styling task numbers like page numbers here; see CMOS 9.26):

Now let’s turn to task 1, “Learn as Much as You Can . . .”

In a heading or a list, either a colon, a period, or a dash—each of which creates a stronger break than a comma—would work a little better at making it clear that “Task 1” is an enumerator and not part of the enumerated item. So you’re not wrong, but your challenger isn’t entirely wrong either.

Q. I’m having trouble explaining to my organization why “the internet” is now lowercase “i.” We do follow CMOS style, but the Internet Society and some others are insisting otherwise. Can I get an explanation that I can use? Not seeing any in the manual.

A. An explanation is beyond the scope of CMOS, but here’s a summary: In ordinary usage, internet with a lowercase i has been common since at least the introduction of the iPod (in 2001; note that lowercase i). And because ordinary usage tends to determine how tech-related neologisms are styled, many guides now prefer lowercase internet—including not only CMOS but also the latest from Microsoft and Apple (computer tech), AP (journalism), APA (psychology), and AMA (medicine).

Meanwhile, documents published by W3C and related organizations that develop or maintain the standards that determine how it all works still tend to refer to the Internet when they mean the worldwide network of computers (but internet when referring to any interconnected network). And as recently as 2019, Internet was still more common in published books than internet—​though the trend toward lowercase is clear.

So the usage preferred by specialists may be less common than it once was, but it’s far from defunct. And according to CMOS 7.2, any discipline-specific preference (which would extend to capitalization) should be respected.

All of which is to say that if you’re editing for the Internet Society, which is in the same league as W3C, then you should accept the capital I. For most other types of organizations, common usage will likely be the better choice.

Q. Hello. In a book for publication in the US, we are citing a British-published book with single quotes in the title: Julie Hankey, A Passion for Egypt: Arthur Weigall, Tutankhamun and the ‘Curse of the Pharaohs.’ Do we change them to double quotes, per US usage? My instinct is to leave it alone, but I want to follow CMOS guidance.

A. CMOS considers the form of quotation marks, whether double or single, to be an arbitrary decision that’s subject to being adjusted to conform to the style in the surrounding text. We’d accordingly change the quotation marks in the Hankey title from single to double to match the usage in a document that follows Chicago (or US) style.

We’d similarly adjust quotation marks in a direct quotation—for example, from single to double in a block quotation of a passage that includes single quotation marks or from double to single in a passage that includes double quotation marks that are themselves quoted with the use of double marks. Such adjustments are at the top of the list of permissible changes at CMOS 13.7. Much of that list would apply to titles of works (but see CMOS 14.88).

We’ll try to clarify this in a future edition of CMOS.

Q. Hello! How does one cite a pamphlet included with a DVD? The pamphlet contains a short essay which has an author but no title. Thank you!

A. Let’s say your text says something like this: “In a booklet accompanying the twenty-fifth-anniversary DVD of Name of Film, So-and-So wrote . . .” Then you would cite the DVD (see CMOS 14.265 for examples).

But because you’ve already mentioned the booklet (the usual word for such an insert) in the text, there’s no need to add it to a citation in a note. If that’s not the case, you can add the word “booklet” to the end of the note. It could also be added to any bibliography entry for the DVD (e.g., “Accompanied by a booklet with an essay by So-and-So”).

Like every month, the Chicago Manual of Style, our style guide of reference, publishes new questions and answers to clarify gray areas, expand explanations, or address topics that are not addressed by the CMOS. Here are January’s Q&As!

New Questions and Answers

Q. Should we apply headline-style capitalization to band names and other proper names containing prepositions? Is it Rage against the Machine or Rage Against the Machine, for example? Thank you!

A. Good question! Normally, yes, the capitalization rules for titles of books and other works (as described in CMOS 8.159) would apply equally to other capitalized names, including names of organizations and musical groups.

Accordingly, articles (a, an, the), common coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, or, nor), and prepositions (of, for, with, etc.) would all be lowercased in the middle of a name. For example, the National Institutes of Health, Sly and the Family Stone—and Rage against the Machine.

But we’d allow an exception in that last case. Against may be a preposition, but it’s just as long as Machine, putting lowercase at odds with the rest of the name. And the sources that have written about that band would have tended to follow some variation of AP style (the main US style for journalists), which capitalizes prepositions of four letters or more. “Rage Against the Machine” is therefore more likely than “Rage against the Machine” to look right—at least to anyone who hasn’t just edited a forty-five-page bibliography to conform to Chicago style.

Q. What is the stance of CMOS on single-letter abbreviations for days of the week? In US higher education, the single-letter abbreviations (M, T, W, R, F, S, U) are ubiquitous, though I find no mention of these abbreviations being codified (ISO uses numbers). In prose, I often find myself using these abbreviations in lists of upcoming deadlines.

A. CMOS doesn’t cover those single-letter abbreviations, but we’d consider them to be a convenient shorthand. In the same way, “1/5” can be a handy way of writing January 5.

But because the meaning of “U” and “R” especially may not be clear, and because “1/5” means May 1 for many readers, we don’t recommend either of those forms in formal writing. Where brevity is the main consideration, our preference would be for Su, M, Tu, W, Th, F, and Sa. For those options and two others, see CMOS 10.40. For all-numeral dates, see CMOS 9.35.

Q. Sorry if I’ve overlooked a CMOS (or Q&A) answer to this question. I’m reviewing an organization’s bylaws, which contain several instances of a number spelled out followed by the number as a numeral in parentheses: e.g., “two (2).” I think parenthetical numerals are pointless redundancies. Does CMOS have a rule or preference related to this?

A. CMOS doesn’t cover this, but we agree with you, as does legal scholar and grammarian Bryan Garner: “The repetition of numbers by spelling them out and then using numerals typifies legalese and should never be used outside legal drafting. . . . Even in modern legal documents it’s largely uncalled for—the convention harks back to the days of legal scribes, who doubled words and numerals to prevent fraudulent alterations (words controlled over numerals).” See Garner’s Modern English Usage (Oxford, 2022), under “Numerals (G).”

Garner’s parenthetical observation that “words controlled over numerals” is interesting. In “two (3),” for example, the mistake would almost certainly be with the 3 and not the two (it’s easy to press a 1 or a 3 when a 2 is intended). That parenthetical numeral is subject not only to “fraudulent alterations” but to typos.

Q. I recently wrote a book where some headings listed tasks and challenges. For example, “Task 1, Learn as Much as You Can about the Disease” and “Challenge 1, Adopt a New Attitude.” Someone told me the punctuation was wrong and the commas should have been colons. I think that either commas or colons are correct. Am I right?

A. You are right—either mark is correct, but a colon isn’t the only alternative to a comma:

Task 1: Learn as Much as You Can . . .
Task 1. Learn as Much as You Can . . .
Task 1—Learn as Much as You Can . . .
Task 1, Learn as Much as You Can . . .

Those examples are listed in descending order of effectiveness. A comma would be most appropriate as sentence punctuation (and we’re styling task numbers like page numbers here; see CMOS 9.26):

Now let’s turn to task 1, “Learn as Much as You Can . . .”

In a heading or a list, either a colon, a period, or a dash—each of which creates a stronger break than a comma—would work a little better at making it clear that “Task 1” is an enumerator and not part of the enumerated item. So you’re not wrong, but your challenger isn’t entirely wrong either.

Q. I’m having trouble explaining to my organization why “the internet” is now lowercase “i.” We do follow CMOS style, but the Internet Society and some others are insisting otherwise. Can I get an explanation that I can use? Not seeing any in the manual.

A. An explanation is beyond the scope of CMOS, but here’s a summary: In ordinary usage, internet with a lowercase i has been common since at least the introduction of the iPod (in 2001; note that lowercase i). And because ordinary usage tends to determine how tech-related neologisms are styled, many guides now prefer lowercase internet—including not only CMOS but also the latest from Microsoft and Apple (computer tech), AP (journalism), APA (psychology), and AMA (medicine).

Meanwhile, documents published by W3C and related organizations that develop or maintain the standards that determine how it all works still tend to refer to the Internet when they mean the worldwide network of computers (but internet when referring to any interconnected network). And as recently as 2019, Internet was still more common in published books than internet—​though the trend toward lowercase is clear.

So the usage preferred by specialists may be less common than it once was, but it’s far from defunct. And according to CMOS 7.2, any discipline-specific preference (which would extend to capitalization) should be respected.

All of which is to say that if you’re editing for the Internet Society, which is in the same league as W3C, then you should accept the capital I. For most other types of organizations, common usage will likely be the better choice.

Q. Hello. In a book for publication in the US, we are citing a British-published book with single quotes in the title: Julie Hankey, A Passion for Egypt: Arthur Weigall, Tutankhamun and the ‘Curse of the Pharaohs.’ Do we change them to double quotes, per US usage? My instinct is to leave it alone, but I want to follow CMOS guidance.

A. CMOS considers the form of quotation marks, whether double or single, to be an arbitrary decision that’s subject to being adjusted to conform to the style in the surrounding text. We’d accordingly change the quotation marks in the Hankey title from single to double to match the usage in a document that follows Chicago (or US) style.

We’d similarly adjust quotation marks in a direct quotation—for example, from single to double in a block quotation of a passage that includes single quotation marks or from double to single in a passage that includes double quotation marks that are themselves quoted with the use of double marks. Such adjustments are at the top of the list of permissible changes at CMOS 13.7. Much of that list would apply to titles of works (but see CMOS 14.88).

We’ll try to clarify this in a future edition of CMOS.

Q. Hello! How does one cite a pamphlet included with a DVD? The pamphlet contains a short essay which has an author but no title. Thank you!

A. Let’s say your text says something like this: “In a booklet accompanying the twenty-fifth-anniversary DVD of Name of Film, So-and-So wrote . . .” Then you would cite the DVD (see CMOS 14.265 for examples).

But because you’ve already mentioned the booklet (the usual word for such an insert) in the text, there’s no need to add it to a citation in a note. If that’s not the case, you can add the word “booklet” to the end of the note. It could also be added to any bibliography entry for the DVD (e.g., “Accompanied by a booklet with an essay by So-and-So”).