Diana Hacker: Language Debates: Comma splices

return to list of language debates

Links in this essay will take you to information about the usage experts and their work. Numbers in parentheses are page references.

To read about this topic in A Writer's Reference, see section G6.

All usage experts endorse the general rule outlawing comma splices (sentences joined with a comma but no coordinating conjunction). The only debate concerns which exceptions to the rule, if any, are allowable. Because comma splices are considered serious errors, drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable use is fraught with danger. And the line is not always easy to draw.

Why are comma splices condemned as serious errors? First, they suggest that the writer lacks basic literacy—the ability to comprehend the boundaries of a sentence. The error is common in the work of schoolchildren but, as Bryan Garner points out, “very rare in print” (580). Second, comma splices can cause misreadings, as in the following passage from Garner:

The remnants of Hurricane Opal will move north. . . . Winds near the center of the storm will diminish rapidly, however, wind gusts over 60 miles per hour will persist around the storm center. (580)

Readers at first think that however goes with the clause they have just read, but in fact it goes with the next clause. A semicolon before however would prevent such a misreading. Other revisions would solve the problem as well (such as replacing however with but).
Although the unintentional comma splice is a serious error, many experts agree that in the hands of an experienced writer, a deliberate comma splice can be effective—but only if no possible misreading results.
William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White say that a comma splice is acceptable “when the clauses are very short and alike in form” (6–7), as in these examples:

Man proposes, God disposes.

The gates swung open, the bridge fell, the portcullis was drawn up. (7)

When clauses are very closely parallel, skilled writers sometimes use a comma splice even when the clauses are not so short, especially to draw a sharp contrast:

The pleasures of the intellect are permanent, the pleasures of the heart are transitory.

—Henry David Thoreau

Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.

—Henri Bergson

Wilson Follett accepts and even recommends comma splices that resemble “not only . . . but also” constructions. In such constructions, he writes, “the comma bids us turn back and gather up what precedes” (295). Consider one of his examples:

This was not only his first concerto, it was his best.

Follett likes the effect of the sentence, which he calls “swift and emphatic,” and he argues that a semicolon would ruin this effect (295).
Admitting that the distinction between a “desirable and deplorable” comma splice is “often subtle and paper thin,” Follett cautions inexperienced writers to “seek safety through semicolons, conjunctions, or separate sentences” (295–96). Bryan Garner cautions all writers, no matter their sophistication, to be careful. Even when a comma splice may be justified, he writes, “some readers are likely to object” (580).
Conclusion: When you use a comma splice deliberately—for effect—you are taking a risk. Only you can decide whether that risk is worth taking.