Herb,
   I like your post and would like to emphasize a point you may only be
implying--that a great deal of our frustration comes from a lack of
understanding of how the intonation system works. I'm reading Jane
Maher's biography of Mina Shaughnessy, so Shaughnessy's ghost may be
speaking here as well--our students are often making sensible errors,
and it's hard to "correct" them if we don't respect their mindset. That
also means respecting the underlying systems of the language that they
are bringing into play.  >
   I would like to see the term "correct" used a lot less and replaced by
"standard" or "conventional". Our students own their own writing, or
ought to; every study seems to show the importance of that. I believe
my job is to help students be aware of conventions and standards, and
that means being honest about the arbitrary nature of some aspects of
all that. Conventions are made to be broken, but there is much to lose
when they are not understood or simply ignored. When they come to me in
college, most students don't have the base of understanding they need
to have a useful conversation about the pattens in their own writing.
The chances are pretty close to 100% that no one has talked to them
about intonation.
   The most common run-on sentence, usually a commas splice, in my
experience, is the one in which the second clause reasserts the first
in some way, as in "My father was a popular man, everyone seemed to
love him."  I usually suggest the semi-colon for that pattern, which I
would describe as two intonation groups (two clauses), but only one
idea asserted. It's easiest to teach when there is a pattern, maybe a
half dozen or so in fairly close proximity.
    Writing effectively means working creatively with standard practices
(and expectations), but simply following them is never enough.
Somehow, the conversation needs to bring in the larger purposes of the
text ands the different "systems" in place to help move those purposes
along.
    Intonation should be a much larger part of the ocnversation.

Craig

 Karl, as usual, has a sensible point of view on this question.  The
> problem with many punctuation rules, especially from the perspective of
> teaching and learning them, is that they are not based on any consistent
> theory of grammar.  Rather, they are a historical accretion of cultural
> practices that have gained varying degrees of acceptance in different
> parts of the world and of English speaking cultures.  Run-on sentences
> and comma splices frequently represent cases where the spoken language
> expresses relationships between clauses that the written language, with,
> for example, its lack of intonation and stress contrast, cannot
> distinguish.  Turabian correctly recognizes that not all coordinate
> clauses are the same and that punctuation practice can vary.  Compare
> the following sentences:
>
> 1. Harry ate five green apples and he got a stomach ache.
> 2. Harry ate five green apples, and he got a stomach ache.
>
> In (1) there is clearly a connection between the two events, the first
> preceding and causing the second.  (2), on the other hand, suggests that
> both things took place but that we should not assume a relationship
> between them.  In speech, this contrast would be distinguished by a
> slight intonational rise on "apples" in (1) and falling intonation on
> "apples" in (2).
>
> This sense that the two clauses are related in ways that go beyond both
> simply being asserted is at the basis of a lot of the run-ons I've seen.
>
> Comma splices tend to be a more complicated problem, partly because
> there are more grammatical factors to consider:  presence or absence of
> a conjunctive adverb, intonation contour, presence or absence of a
> coordinating conjunction, use of a semi-colon or a comma, clausal vs.
> phrasal status of the second element, etc.  It's easy to state a rule
> that two clauses are separated by a comma only if the second begins with
> a coordinating conjunction.  Otherwise one of four methods must be used:
> (a) put a period after the first and capitalize the first letter of the
> second, (b) use a semi-colon, (c) use a semi-colon and a conjunctive
> adverb, (d) put a period after the first and capitalize the conjunctive
> adverb (some editors reject this option).
>
> In (3), any of the standard options would work:
>
> 3. The corner of Fifth and Vine has seen a lot of accidents; therefore,
> the city council ordered four-way stop signs installed.
>
> However, in (4) the semantic relationship between the two clauses is
> close enough that a writer may not want the force of the semi-colon and
> may sense that a comma fits the relationship better:
>
> 4. Harry at five green apples, he got a stomach ache.
>
> Formally, (4) would be incorrect.  I contend, however, that this is a
> deficiency in the rule, not in the writer's expressive ability.  I would
> certainly advise the writer to use a semi-colon if career decisions are
> to be made on the basis of the sentence.  But the reason so many comma
> splices like (4) occur is that the writer is trying to say something
> that the punctuation rules of written English are too crude to allow.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karl Hagen
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Commas in compound sentences
>
> My observations:
>
> 1. You're right that the rule is often ignored, especially but not
> exclusively, in fiction.
>
> 2. Some style guides, e.g., Chicago, contain an exception for short,
> closely related clauses. Your example to me arguably falls under that
> exception, although you could just as well say that the lack of commas
> was meant to convey a more conversational tone.
>
> 3. The big standardized tests (SAT, ACT) contain questions that require
> students to apply this rule, so there are practical reasons as to why it
> can't just be jettisoned. From what I've observed, they appear to avoid
> clauses that might fall under the short & related exception.
>
> I do think, though, that younger students don't need this rule at first,
> perhaps not until high school. Give them some time to get an intuitive
> feel for sentence combining and to build up an understanding of clauses.
> Only after that will the punctuation rules make much sense.
>
> Michael Kischner wrote:
>> I'm wondering how many people are still teaching that placing a comma
> before
>> a coordinating conjunction in a compound sentence is the rule and
> omitting
>> the comma is the exception?  I have been reading through mostly
> fiction
>> books for elementary and middle school readers, and in those books it
> is
>> certainly the other way around.  So in teaching kids at those levels
> to use
>> the comma, we are up against most of what they see in print.
>>
>> Last night, I made up some compound sentences to use in a workshop for
>> elementary and middle school teachers.  I inserted the comma before
> each
>> coordinating conjunction.  Then I read most of a delightful book,
> *Clarice
>> Bean Spells Trouble* by Lauren Child.  It is full of sentences like
> this:
>> "Grandad has actually got manners but he doesn't use them that much
> anymore
>> and he hasn't let the dog see them, which is why Cement is utterly
>> mannerless."  This morning, when I returned to my carefully made-up
>> sentences, the commas looked like clutter: "Matthew wanted to play
> soccer,
>> but the doctor said he should rest his injured leg."
>>
>> I know that fiction narrated in the first person is the likeliest
> place to
>> find compound sentences without commas.  But, though I haven't
> searched
>> methodically, I think I have noticed them all over the place, in both
>> fiction and nonfiction for both younger and older readers.
>>
>> I wonder  whether the comma-before-the-conjunction "rule" has become
> one of
>> those pedagogic oversimplifications of reality we sometimes resort to
> in
>> order to give learners something clear and secure to grasp until
> they're
>> ready for more complexity.  Whether such oversimplifications are
> effective
>> or justified is a whole other question.  What I think I'd prefer is a
> better
>> rule.
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/