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/