You Win This Round Comma

Image: man standing in comma-shaped beam of light
Photo credit: Mattiii photo on Visualhunt / CC BY-NC-SA

Today’s guest post is by author, editor and writing coach Mathina Calliope (@MathinaCalliope).


Hardly anyone would argue that commas don’t matter, but plenty of people—including plenty of writers—give them too little thought. At some point in their lives they might have tried to understand all the rules (commas to restrict information? Oxford commas? vocative commas?). They wanted to hug the English teacher who said they could simply use them “wherever you would pause if speaking.”

They went on their way, relieved to think commas were a style choice, there weren’t necessarily hard-and-fast rules, they could let an editor worry about that. Or a reader, who would be saddled with the extra mental work required to discern the author’s intended meaning.

Actually, though, you cannot just put commas where you would pause when speaking. Why? Because the presence or absence of a comma conveys meaning.

Since you’re reading this blog, you’re probably familiar with some egregious examples of comma malpractice, for example, “Let’s eat Grandma.” You know you can save a life with the vocative comma: “Let’s eat, Grandma.”

Other chuckle-worthy comma memes populate the internet, such as the picture of Stalin and JFK outfitted for pole dancing versus the one of Stalin, JFK, and two strippers (illustrating the value of the Oxford comma).

My favorite, and the most nerdy, meme is a Tumblr post with a picture of a knife blade in a block of cheese, handle broken off. The caption reads, “You win this round cheese.” The first reply: “actually that is a rectangle cheese.”

Here’s the next reply: “[oxford comma laughing in the distance].”

Then the mic drop: “[vocative comma wondering what oxford comma thinks it’s doing here].”

I know. There are A LOT of kinds of commas and a lot of rules regarding their usage. What’s more, some of these are house style points, not universal rules, and many of them can be ignored in certain situations at the discretion of the editor or writer. Finally, all may be broken deliberately for artistic effect, just as any “rule” of grammar or syntax or spelling can.

Today I’ll address just one rule, the one I see broken most often: Use a comma to show that information is nonessential (nonrestrictive); do not use a comma to show it is essential (restrictive).

Consider this sentence—

Armand gave an ashtray to his husband who smokes.

versus this one—

Armand gave an ashtray to his husband, who smokes.

What does that comma do? It changes the husband’s smoking from restrictive to nonrestrictive. What does that mean? If the information is restrictive, it limits the application to the smoking husband. In the first phrase, omitting the comma conveys that the husband we’re dealing with here is the one who smokes. The syntax implies Armand has one or more other husbands, that they do not smoke. The author doesn’t mean those husbands, he or she means this husband.

The first version isn’t wrong, IF Armand has more than one husband and IF only one of Armand’s husbands smokes. But if Armand has only one husband, the sentence says something the author does not intend it to say.

With the comma, the information is nonrestrictive. The comma signals that the important thing about the sentence is that Armand’s husband received an ashtray. It turns the information after it into extra, nice-to-know data. That information is nonessential.

Here is an example featuring bread:

Restrictive—

The bread that I bought yesterday is stale.

Not the bread I bought today, or the day before yesterday. The phrase “that I bought yesterday” is essential; it restricts the sentence to just that loaf of bread.

Nonrestrictive—

The bread, which I bought yesterday, is stale.

The commas tell us there’s only one loaf of bread. That I bought it yesterday is informative but not essential, since readers just need to know it is stale.

Extra points if you noticed the “which” and the “that.” In American English, we use “which” with nonrestrictive information and “that” with restrictive information.

Here’s a coffee-related example:

Restrictive—

Baristas who work at Starbucks make Pumpkin Spice Lattes.

Not all baristas make PSLs. Only those who work at Starbucks. (This example might or might not be true. I have not researched whether Starbucks trademarked the PSL.)

Nonrestrictive—

Baristas, who work in coffee shops, make cappuccinos.

We’re talking about baristas generally. They work in coffee shops—informative but not essential—and they make cappuccinos.

For better or worse, English does not have a who equivalent to the that/which distinction. (The who/whom difference is something else.)

Okay fine, you’re thinking, this comma rule really does matter. But is it that big a deal if I mess it up? Most of the time, no. Most of the time, context will help readers autocorrect the mistake and infer what you meant. Other times, getting this wrong will create ambiguity, or worse, confusion. All of the time, it creates extra work, and if part of your reader’s brain is busy trying to decode syntax-level meaning, that part of the brain cannot fall in love with your protagonist, your plot, or your prose.

If you’d rather have your reader relax into your writing, spend some time thinking about this difference. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab has some more examples, explanations, and even worksheets to help you nail this comma rule down.

And if it’s really, truly too much? Get a good editor. 🙂

Share on:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

9 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Harald Johnson

Me, I live and breathe commas. Now how about subjunctive?

William Wolfe

Great article. I thought I was pretty good with commas, but I didn’t know the name of the vocative comma–just that one was needed. I really appreciate the clarity and precision of the writing. One trifle: the example of the Starbucks baristas isn’t exactly as stated.
“Baristas who work at Starbucks make Pumpkin Spice Lattes.
Not all baristas make PSLs. Only those who work at Starbucks.”
Actually, that sentence does not restrict the production of Pumpkin Spice Lattes to Starbucks baristas. It states that (ALL) baristas who work at Starbucks make PSLs. Baristas at other coffee shops may or may not, because the sentence only applies to Starbucks baristas.
Here’s another example: “Cows in Kentucky eat grass.” That doesn’t mean that other animals in Kentucky don’t also eat grass. Nor does it provide information on whether cows in other states eat or do not eat grass. We only know that cows in Kentucky definitely do dine on grass. You can count on it.
Small note on a wonderful article.

Dan Phalen

What I want to know is, where’s the round comma I just won?

Ed Iannuccilli

Thank you. Tricky, but necessary

Jennifer Lafferty

Commas are so much more important that most people realize. They can make all the difference.

trackback

[…] Lots of craft issues can derail your reader’s enjoyment of the book, even craft issues that seem small. Jodie Renner has quick tips for avoiding viewpoint gaffes in your fiction, Jami Gold examines chapter breaks and chapter titles, Robert Lee Brewer demystifies further vs. farther, and Mathina Calliope takes on commas. […]

Rebecca Douglass

Good article. I hadn’t known the name for the vocative comma (I knew the usage, just not the label). I have no problem with commas that have an obvious impact on meaning. But I do tend to misuse them in less crucial places, at least according to my editor 🙂

Virginia Anderson

I am a great fan of commas. I’ve featured them on my blog several times. One of my favorite posts is the one that argues that you only need five comma rules. Essential/restrictive vs. nonessential/nonrestrictive is one of the five, but the hardest to explain in a limited space. You’ve done a great job here! No reblog button but I’m going to share your post on justcanthelpwriting.com. Good stuff.

Nate

What is a “round comma”, exactly?