I’ve been noticing a lot of aspersions being cast against against the comma splice recently. A quick sampling:
“The dreaded comma splice rears its ugly head again.”
“Splices are the worst, namely because there are probably over a hundred other ways to combine the clauses correctly”*
“My senior English teacher marked down any paper with even a single comma splice by two letter grades [… It] gave me a terror-loathing of comma splices that has never left me.”
A comma splice, also known more judgmentally as a comma fault, error, or blunder, occurs when a writer joins two independent clauses with only a comma. One might write, for instance:
(1) I'm going to the store, I'll be back soon.
Sure, there are lots of other ways to join the clauses above (I suspect less than 100), such as a semi-colon, a dash, or a comma with a conjunction. The trouble is that each of the options carries with it a certain feel: the semicolon feels a bit formal, the dash a bit distant, the conjunction a bit unnecessary. The comma splice is light and airy, a gentle joining that fits the breezy style I wanted in that sentence.
But alas, that breeziness is abhorred by many English users, whether due to fear of punishment or their personal preferences. I can see where they're coming from, and surely you can too. Comma splices are often misused; the simplicity of their splice rarely sounds good with bulky clauses or ones that don't have an obvious connection. Continually using comma splices can make your writing sound like a bouquet of run-ons, and there's always the danger of confusion in using comma splices with clauses that look like lists.
But there's nothing inherently wrong, dreadful, or ungrammatical about a comma splice. In fact, if there's anything bad to be said about the comma splice, it's that it's old-fashioned.
Comma splices were unexceptional in the 18th century; the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage offers examples from Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swift, and Benjamin Franklin. You might object that punctuation was in flux in those days. It’s a fair point, although I could rejoin that punctuation remains in flux through the present day. But also, we find that even as the punctuation system of English came together in the 19th century, comma splices remained common in letters. In fact, the earliest complaint against the comma splice found by the MWDEU staff only dates back to 1917.
That’s the historical side. So what about the informality? That 19th century shift mentioned above is an early indication of the emerging informality of the splice; its continued appearances in letters but drop-off in published works suggests a growing opinion that it was informal. Stan Carey’s post on comma splices serves in part as a repository for modern splices, and most of his examples feel informal as well.**
So what caused the change in perception? The MWDEU offers a potential explanation that I find reasonable: the very idea of the comma splice is based on the brief pauses in speech that have no equivalent in formal writing. Older English punctuation systems were more a system of marking how long of pauses would be used if the passage were spoken than the mostly-semantic/syntactic punctuation system we now have. Informal writing also tends to be punctuated more like speech; many of the punctuation choices I make in writing this blog, for instance, are motivated by how I’d say what I’ve written. Formal writing in the modern English punctuation system asks for more explanatory punctuation, and so the comma splice fell by its wayside. Sounds like a plausible hypothesis to me, though I don’t know of a good way to test it.
And that brings up the crux of why comma splices are demonized. They are informal, which means that virtually all style guides will be against them. (An aside: why are there no style guides for informal writing? I’d say it’s because it’s easy and obvious to write informally, but looking at how people write emails and comments and blogs, it certainly seems a lot of people could use guidance in translating from the voice in their heads to words on a screen.)
Of course, it’s fair for style guides to oppose informal things, as far as it goes. The problem is that style guides tend to do a poor job of saying “you only need to worry about this in formal writing”, and their readers do an even worse job at stopping themselves from applying any piddling rule from their preferred stylebook to the whole of English.
Speaking of which: E. B. White, he of Strunk & White and The Elements of Style, illustrates the need to deviate from style guides in informal situations. The fifth Elementary Rule of Usage in their book is Do not join independent clauses with a comma. In a 1963 letter, White wrote:
“Tell Johnny to read Santayana for a little while, it will improve his sentence structure.”
Now there’s a man who knows not to be pushed around by style guides.
Summary: Comma splices were perfectly normal in 18th century punctuation. Starting the 19th century, as English punctuation codified, they were left somewhat on the outside, possibly due to their close connection to speech. They remain standard for informal writing, especially when short, closely connected clauses are being spliced. There is nothing inherently wrong with a comma splice, although when overused or used by a tin-eared writer, they can sound like run-ons.
—
*: I’m especially fond of this one, since it sounds like the problem with comma splices is just that there are other options, not that there are better options. I love the ambiguity in the scope of other, and whether it covers “correctly”.
**: Stan also has some good advice on how and when he’d use or avoid comma splices, though our opinions differ a bit.
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm
John Cowan
The reason comma-splices are demonized is that they are easy to check and hard for the student to dispute, thus an easy win for the teacher. Two letter grades indeed! That’s just insulting.
July 23, 2012 at 9:09 pm
gelolopez
Reblogged this on Musings of a Demented Little Boy and commented:
“And that brings up the crux of why comma splices are demonized. They are informal, which means that virtually all style guides will be against them. (An aside: why are there no style guides for informal writing? I’d say it’s because it’s easy and obvious to write informally, but looking at how people write emails and comments and blogs, it certainly seems a lot of people could use guidance in translating from the voice in their heads to words on a screen.)”
July 23, 2012 at 9:13 pm
gelolopez
An informal style guide would really be a great help, especially for bloggers. It’s easier to write based on your train of thought.
July 24, 2012 at 8:45 am
Zel
THANK YOU for this. I’ve always wondered why there were so many comma splices in novels. I’m an editor in a quite formal field (medical lit) and can’t help noticing them even when off duty.
July 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Ado_Annie
For many years the sign on the fenced in steam locomotive read, “No Trespassing Violators Will Be Prosecuted.” I think it could have could have used a spliced comma.
July 25, 2012 at 3:24 am
Bob
I majored in English but until I got onto the Internet I’d never heard the term “comma splice”. It is just another example of American prescriptivist lunacy. That people should be marked down for such common and standard English is irrational beyond belief. It is Americans and prescriptivists who are dumbing down the language by reducing it to a lot of meaningless and pointless rules. (This doesn’t mean that all rules are wrong or that there are no rules.)
July 25, 2012 at 8:55 am
languagehat
Now there’s a man who knows not to [let himself be] pushed around by style guides.
I think you mean “Now there’s a hypocrite.”
July 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Gabe
John Cowan: Now that’s a good explanation.
gelolopez: Now you’ve got me thinking about it more. Any suggestions for what you’d want to see in an informal style guide?
Ado_Annie: Now there’s an example where willful misreading is funny.
languagehat: Now, now. It’s just that White is a GREAT WRITER. He can break the rules however he sees fit, because he knows them all. :) And congrats on ten years of LH!
March 21, 2013 at 11:38 am
Motmaitre
Comma splices are just lazy. The issues has nothing to do with formal/informal modes of speech or writing, because nobody speaks the way sentences with comma splices are written. In speech, you pause between two independent clauses, so independent clauses should be separated by a full stop, in my opinion. That’s why they are independent. So using the examples in the article, you should have:
I’m going to the store. I’ll be back soon.
Do not lock bikes against tree guards. Bikes will be removed.
Tell Johnny to read Santayana for a little while. It will improve his sentence structure.
Now, what’s wrong with that? If you’re too lazy to reword your sentence, or to add a conjunction, then simply use a full stop instead of a comma. There’s really no excuse for the execrable comma splice, and we should mark down anybody who uses it by at least two letter grades in real life.
January 21, 2014 at 11:58 pm
brookewake
Yes, yes, Motmaitire!!! My words exactly. Such sloppiness. Comma splices are the ultimate grammatical cardinal sin.
February 7, 2014 at 8:54 am
Re-Re-Revisiting the SAT | BetaWorldProblems
[…] Swift, Benjamin Franklin, and even E. B. White (of “Strunk & White” fame) have all joined independent clauses with commas in their writing. If the standard says it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Fill in the bubble that […]
March 13, 2014 at 5:30 am
steelwhisper
Reblogged this on Steelwhisper and commented:
Excellent essay on comma splices!
April 1, 2014 at 7:05 am
Rod Griffiths
Does a comma splice ever make the meaning less clear? I’ve never seen an article on it that says – don’t do this because you won’t be understood. I have, on the other hand, seen plenty that say “don’t use comma splices because fascist dramatists will descend on you in hordes.”
February 18, 2015 at 2:31 am
Rod Griffiths
There is a potential flaw in the whole debate that I have never seen addressed. “when a writer joins two independent clauses” – who decides that the clauses are independent – the writer or the reader? The writer presumably thought that they were not independent because he or she included them in the same sentence. In the writers mind they were connected and hence not independent, so in the writer’s mind they were not spicing two independent clauses.
February 14, 2020 at 4:42 pm
Comma splices and cultural differences – flicstar
[…] Be open to other ideas of “correctness“ […]
April 11, 2022 at 4:07 am
languagehat
^The above comment is spam.
April 22, 2022 at 6:40 pm
Gabe
fixed, thanks!