Cynthia,
I certainly would not recommend ignoring comma splices in your students'
writing. Rather, and you hint at this, I'd take them as symptomatic of
a more pervasive problem in the student's ability to convert from spoken
to written language. Relationships that written language doesn't have
systematic ways of expressing, as intonation does in speech, which is,
of course, basic, have to be expressed in other ways. I suspect that a
lot of comma splices aren't simply mistakes; they're attempts to express
meanings that go beyond the writer's ability to manipulate written
English. Plenty of teaching opportunities there. I suspect that if
comma splices were approached in this way in teaching, students would
see that they aren't simply some arbitrary mistake they keep making but
rather are a limitation placed by the conventions of writing that they
have to learn to work around.
And what's wrong with telling students that a lot conventions they must
observe are arbitrary?
Keep in mind that I taught college English, not high school, so I'm not
exactly a serious source on high school pedagogy.
All the best!
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cynthia Baird
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Commas in compound sentences
Hey, Herb! I have not responded to the ATEG list for quite some time
because I have been busy with a new teaching position. I really miss
reading and responding to everyone's posts.
However, I noticed this post because it relates to much of what a high
school English teacher does--instruct in correct punctuation of
sentences to achieve clear communication.
Herb, are you suggesting that we (high school teachers) not correct a
sentence that really contains a comma splice? Although I agree with you
that the writer has expressed him or herself in your example sentence, I
think that the writer could easily be instructed how to separate these
clauses without interfering with his or her expression. Is it wrong to
instruct writers to consider the reader's confusion and to punctuate and
add conjunctions in such a way to eliminate reader confusion? Isn't
that the basis of punctuation, anyway? Certainly many commas are
unnecessary because no reader confusion exists, but to allow writers to
carry on without regard to punctuation, coordination, or subordination
seems to me to condone their confused writing. I teach students to
always keep in mind their readers or listeners. Do I dare tell students
that punctuation is arbitrary?
as always, thanks to all of you who post and respond!
"STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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/
________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
it now.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62
sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20> 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/