Punctuation Pointers: Common Errors and How to Fix 'Em

Dr. Andrea Lunsford’s research identified the most common error patterns found in the writing of U.S. college students. Here are fifteen of those errors and how to fix them.

 

 

Correcting Common Comma Errors

      Recognizing a sentence means knowing its boundaries: knowing just what to include between the opening capital letter and the ending period, question mark, or exclamation point. Truly understanding a sentence, however, means knowing its inner workings, its internal boundaries, the demarcations of its constituent sections and parts. And that means understanding how commas function.

Missing comma after an introductory element


The introductory adverbs
     The usual pattern of an English sentence is Subject-Verb-Modifier, and the most common modifiers are adverbial. Whether single words, phrases or clauses, they basically tell why, where, when or how the action happened. And they usually follow the action in the sentence.

   Carla walked slowly in no particular direction because she
   had no particular place to go.

However, adverbials are movable. Therefore, in order to alleviate boredom, we often move them. When we move them to the start of the sentence, they become "introductory elements," and we follow them with a comma to indicate where the adverbial ends and the main part of the sentence begins.

    Because she had no place to go, Carla walked slowly in no
    particular direction.

    In no particular direction, Carla walked slowly because she
    had no particular place to go.

    Slowly, Carla walked in no particular direction because she
    had no particular place to go.

Okay, by rights, in that last example, because the introductory element is so short, you don't absolutely need the comma. But consider reading sentences that start like these:

    In 1816 deadly cases of cholera ....  
    In short people who cannot tolerate massive doses of ....
    To the French bread that is baked slowly in brick ovens ....

Do you see how quickly commas strategically placed after "1816," "short," and "French" would make it clear we're talking about the year and not the number of cholera cases, about people generally and not those under 5', and about the people of France rather than a baguette?

Be it long or short, you can't go wrong when you place a comma after an introductory element. So why not? (Oops, as long as the introductory element is not a coordinating conjunction: that is, so, and, but, for, or, yet, for, or nor. But that's a whole nother rule to make or break.)

The introductory adjectives
      Sorry but we're not done yet. English has another set of introductory modifiers that are set off with commas — but not the really, really short ones. That is, the ones made up of just one word.

This set comprises the "participles," verbs transmogrified into adjectives, sometimes by the addition of an "-ing" ending (the present participles) and sometimes by the addition of "-ed" or "-en" (the past participles). The verb form may be used alone or followed by a prepositional phrase:

     Barking dogs annoy me.
     Gnawing and pawing dogs annoy me.
     Dogs barking in the night really, really annoy me.

For some unknown reason (unknown to me, at least*), single-word participles and compound participles may come before or after the noun they modify, often without a separating comma. On the other hand, participial phrases that combine a participle with a preposition generally follow the noun. To test this out, try to imagine speaking this sentence: "Barking in the night dogs annoy me." We'd need a whole raft of hyphens, and that would look truly ugly!

When we do move the participle+prepositional phrase to the front of the sentence, we insert the comma.

     Barking throughout the entire night, my neighbor's dog
     drove me nearly mad.

* Actually, I do know the reason. It has to do with restrictive and non-restrictive elements. But we'll deal with those elsewhere. For the moment, see if you can figure out when a single-word or compound introductory participle would require a comma and when it wouldn't.

 

Missing comma in a compound sentence


     A "clause" is a group of words containing both a subject and a verb. Some clauses are "dependent"; others are "independent." An independent clause can stand on its own and function as a sentence.

Here are two independent clauses:

     We are all in the gutter. Some of us are looking at the stars.

To establish a firmer relationship between these two ideas, we can tie them together by changing the first period into a comma and inserting a coordinating conjunction after it:

  We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Remember we're dealing with "independent" clauses here—willful, headstrong, intractable would-be sentences. So we need both the comma and the conjunction. It's not the way it is with those namby-pamby compound subjects or compound verbs or compound adjectives or compound adverbs that just need a conjunction but no comma: Mary and Mike fought and howled but made up quickly and completely.

Compound sentences need both the comma and the conjunction to hold them together because they can split apart and function quite nicely on their own.

  We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
  We are all in the gutter. But some of us are looking at the stars.

So when you're joining two independent clauses, always use the comma with the conjunction, or you'll commit one of the twenty most common errors — the "missing comma in a compound sentence."

 

Comma splices

     If you were to write a compound sentence and left out the comma before the coordinating conjunction, you'd be committing the "missing comma in a compound sentence" error, which I just explained above.

Now imagine you kept the comma but left out the conjunction. That's the equally egregious "comma splice" error.

The most common instances of the comma splice, however, don't involve the coordinating conjunctions (but, and, or, nor, for, yet). The most common comma splices hinge upon the conjunctive adverbs — however and therefore.

However and therefore are not coordinating conjunctions. You can tell because these two words behave more like adverbs: that is, you can move them around. You can't move around a coordinating conjunction: It has to be placed between its two coordinates, or it doesn't work.

        Many are called, but few are chosen.
        Many are called, few but are chosen.

See, it doesn't work. But now use however instead of but.

        Many are called. However, few are chosen.
        Many are called. Few, however, are chosen.
        Many are called. Few are chosen, however.

There's a price paid for such mobility. However (and therefore works the same way) is too mobile, too changeable, too fickle to combine with a punctuation mark as weak as the comma and still hold two independent clauses together. It's just not that coordinated or coordinating.

So independent clauses beginning with however and therefore must be set off as separate sentences. Or combined with the stronger punctuation mark, the semi-colon, which comprises both the weak connecting comma and the strong separating period in one.

      Many are called. However, few are chosen.
      Many are called; however, few are chosen.

That's it. Oh, except please remember the adverbial conjunction however is always set off from the other words around it by a comma or commas. That's to keep readers from confusing it with the straight adverbial however, as in "However few are chosen, many will still be called."

When therefore is set off with commas, therefore emphasizes the words preceding it; without commas, it emphasizes the words following:

  Your mother and your mother alone, therefore, believes you.
  Your mother and your mother alone therefore believes you.

 

Fused sentence

     To commit the "fused sentence" error, you have to commit the "missing comma in the compound sentence" error and then leave out the coordinating conjunction, too. So read about that error and the comma splice as well. If you habitually write fused sentences, you'll need some good groundwork.

 

Sentence fragments

     The sentence fragment is basically the opposite of the fused sentence or comma splice. As most grammar handbooks will tell you, "a sentence fragment is a part of a sentence that is written as if it were a whole sentence, with a capital letter at the beginning and a period at the end." That's correct. It's also correct to say that a sentence fragment "lacks a subject, a complete verb, or both."

The second statement is misleading, however, because it implies most sentence fragments are short, shorter than the full, non-fragmented sentence would be. In fact, that's seldom the case.

Most people commit the sentence fragment error because they're afraid their sentence is getting too long, when, in truth, there is no limit to the length a sentence can be as long as it is properly constructed.

If you read the preceding sentence and were tempted to shorten it by changing the comma after "too long" to a period and the "when" to "When," you must fight the urge to create sentence fragments.

Why? Because "when" makes the clause that follows it, not an "independent clause," not a full sentence, but a "dependent" or "subordinate clause," which cannot function on its own. It must be tied to a full "independent clause" seamlessly or with a comma. Drop out the "when," however, and you would need to split the two clauses into separate sentences — or risk a comma splice.

(By the way, your question forced me to commit the sentence fragment error because "because" also reduces an independent clause to a subordinate one. Other "subordinating conjunctions" similarly suggest time, place, or reason: e.g. after, although, as, as though, before, once, so that, since, unless, whenever, while, etc. You get the picture.)

 

Missing comma in a series

     Why this is listed as an error, I will never understand.

Most grammar handbooks, including the very excellent Everyday Writer, will tell you a comma accompanying the conjunction between the final two items in a series is optional.

You may leave out the comma, as most newspapers and magazines do, and write this sentence:

    Sam & Ella's diner specializes in down-home favorites like
    pulled pork, barbequed ribs and corned beef and cabbage.

Or you may choose to insert the comma, as often done in academic and professional writing, and punctuate the same sentence thus:

    Sam & Ella's diner specializes in down-home favorites
    like pulled pork, barbequed ribs, and corned beef
    and cabbage.

In fact, the newspapers and magazine trade (where every character costs money) is not just being cheap. It's being logical. The commas between initial series members substitute for the conjunction, thereby avoiding tedious repetition, as well as possible confusion, in a sentence like

    Sam & Ella's diner specializes in down-home favorites
    like pulled pork and barbequed ribs and corned beef
    and cabbage.

So using a comma with a conjunction is itself repetitive, like writing "and and."

Bottom line: Be consistent and be canny. If you like to use the comma with the conjunction, use it consistently. More important, if your boss or your prof tells you to use the comma (or not), don't be stubborn – just consistent.

NB: A different rule set applies to a series of adjectives modifying a single noun. Depending upon the type of adjectives used, commas between them may be right or wrong.

English adjectives fall into a number of distinct descriptive categories: those describing size, age, quality or character, material, length or shape, and culture or nationality. When we combine adjectives from across categories, they are referred to as "cumulative" and fall into a prescribed order.

       [size]        [quality]                     [size]     [material]
    A   big   old   shaggy   dog       An enormous   wooden    box
               [age]

Cumulative adjectives are NOT separated by commas. And they cannot swap positions in the sentence (e.g., we would not talk about "a wooden enormous box").

On the other hand, when we string together like adjectives from within the same category, we refer to them as "coordinate" and we MUST separate them with commas.

                                [all quality or character]
                 Jacob is a kind, loving, considerate man.

A good rule of thumb: If you can swap the order of your adjectives, you need commas between them. No swap, no commas. Oh, by the way, the commas between coordinate adjectives in a series are also subbing for coordinating conjunctions, just as they did in the noun series above. Test it out:

               Jacob is a kind, loving and considerate man.

 

Missing comma with a non-restrictive element &
Unnecessary comma with a restrictive element

     Two sides of a single coin, these errors need to be discussed together. First, we'll define "element," and then we'll distinguish between the "restrictive" and the "non-restrictive."

The "elements" are primarily adjectival, that is, noun modifiers: relative clauses (starting with who, which, that); participles (e.g. "barking in the night"); and nouns used as "appositives" ("Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, guided his country....")

Some restrictive and non-restrictive "elements," however, are adverbial – most often adverbial clauses (beginning with although, because, since, while, etc.).

A "restrictive element" offers vital, indispensable information about the noun or verb it modifies, usually by limiting or restricting the referent to a particular subset of a larger group. Because the restrictive element is vitally linked to the word or phrase it modifies, the two cannot be separated by commas.

           A man who is afraid to die cannot really live.
           Fields that attract commercial attention attract money.
           Dogs barking in the night drive me mad.  
           Elmore Leonard's novel Get Shorty is his best.
           "But I like it because it is bitter...."    

A "non-restrictive element," on the other hand, provides added and often interesting information about its referent but does not essentially define it. The non-restrictive element is set off from the rest of the sentence by commas as indication it could be removed without destroying the sentence's meaning.

The coward, who may have reason to fear, is yet unfit to serve.
The energy field, which is popular now, easily attracts funds.
Elmore Leonard's twenty-eighth novel, Get Shorty, is his best.
I ate it with gusto, even though it was bitter.

NB: Two points are of interest here. First, notice how "that" in the restrictive element becomes "which" in the non-restrictive. Hence we have the rule stipulating "which" be preceded by a comma and "that" not have a comma before it.
    Second, all adverbial phrases and clauses placed at the beginning of sentences are set off from their sentences by commas ("Because it is bitter, I like it." "Although it was bitter, I ate it with gusto.") But when placed at the end of the sentence, after the main clause, only subordinate clauses starting with words like "although" or "even though" and indicating contradiction are set off by a preceding comma. Those introduced with words expressing reason or time or condition (because, when) are not.

 

 

Pesky Possessives

     Nouns and pronouns can be the agents of action — "subjects." Nouns and pronouns can be recipients of action or recipients of other nouns and pronouns acted upon — "direct objects" or "indirect objects." Finally, nouns and pronouns can also be the possessors of other nouns, in which case they become "possessive." Funny how possessive forms give us so much trouble given the value we place on ownership in our culture. Seems we ought to get it right or give it up.

Missing or misplaced apostrophes


     The sign of the possessive case is the apostrophe, sometimes alone (with plural nouns already ending in s) and sometimes followed by its own s (with singular nouns and those plural nouns — like men, women, children — that do not already end in s.)

Most of us know how to use the apostrophe to form possessives but overlook its absence in editing, thinking to ourselves, "What's the fuss? It's just a punctuation mark, nothing really meaningful like a letter." Here's the fuss. Imagine I wrote,

             Those mangy dogs over there are my brothers
when I meant,
             Those mangy dogs over there are my brother's.

Adding an apostrophe where it's not needed can be just as embarrassing as leaving out a necessary one. What if I incorrectly inserted an apostrophe in the word friends in the next sentence?

        Glynda as happy to go off to college but sad to leave
        her hometown friends behind.

So, to show possession, follow these general rules:
With singular nouns* and plural nouns not ending in -s, add -'s
     John Wideman's novels have won him numerous awards.
     The company's chief officer was charged with embezzlement.
     Many victors become pride's victims.
     Men's hopes should be as bright as children's dreams.

With plural nouns that do end in -s, add just the apostrophe
     I bought a ten dollars' worth of lottery tickets and won a buck.
     The senators' votes split along party lines.

With two or more nouns, there's a trick. If it's a case of individual ownership, make each individual noun possessive; if it's a case of joint ownership, make only the last noun possessive
     Jacob's and Jane's papers showed startling similarities.
     Jacob and Jane's duet brought a standing ovation.

* People sometimes wonder about adding the -'s to singular nouns (usually names) that end in -s. The answer is generally "yes": Curtis's book, Chris's study, Dr. Seuss's cat. Exceptions can be made for ancient and classical names (Jesus' love, Moses' laws, Achilles' chariot) and some terms expressing moral or spiritual motives (for goodness' sake, for righteousness' sake).

NB: Keep in mind that we've been considering nouns. Pronouns form the possessive differently. Personal pronouns (I, you, he, she, it; we, you, they) never take the apostrophe (my, mine, your, yours, his, her, hers, its; our, ours, your, yours, their, theirs).
    Reciprocal pronouns and most indefinite pronouns are singular, even if they refer to two or more nouns. So their possessive forms follow the rule for signular nouns: each other's, one another's, each one's, everyone's, etc.

 

Its/It's confusion


     It's not that hard — really. While nouns are made possessive by the added apostrophe, pronouns are not. And it is a pronoun, like he or she.

Its is the possessive form of it: Think of "his," another common possessive, the possessive form of he, which like its has no apostrophe:

       The car was lying on its side in a ditch.
       The man was lying on his side in a ditch.

It's is the contraction of it is. Like other contractions, it contains an apostrophe and represents the casual slurring together of two words. So, as you wouldn't slur your words in a formal speech, avoid the its/it's confusion altogether and don't use it's in formal writing.

  

Pronoun Problems

     Pronouns take the place of nouns. It's that simple, right? Not really. First, unlike most nouns, pronouns are inflected — their spelling changes — not just for number (singular and plural), but also for all three cases (subjective, objective, possessive). So we have, for example, I, we, me, us, my, mine, our, and ours — all in the service of the first person pronoun.
     Now, to complicate matters, that's just the first person "personal" pronoun. We also have "interrogative pronouns" (who? whose? what? which?), "relative prounouns" (who, whom, that, which), "reciprocal pronouns" (each other, one another), "reflexive pronouns" (myself, yourself, herself, himself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves), "indefinite pronouns" (all, anyone, everyone, none, one, someone, etc., etc.), and "demonstrative pronouns" (this, that, these, those).
      Once we count up the possible combinations and permutations of pronoun type, case, and number, it's little wonder we sometimes mismatch our nouns and pronouns. Most of us do pretty well; some of we could do better. (Just kidding heh heh)

Lack of agreement between pronoun and antecedent


     Most of us have no trouble with basic pronoun-antecedent agreement. That is to say, we can provide the right pronoun to match the noun it replaces: Lucy rolls in her diurnal course; Rivulets dance their wild cha-cha; My eye was fixed, but still it saw. We run into trouble in three particular instances.

Reciprocal & indefinite pronouns
We run into trouble with those reciprocal and indefinite pronouns mentioned above, pronouns like each, each other, one another, each one, every, everyone, and everybody. We forget these are all singular. So it's not, "Each of the boys thrived in their new home." It's
        Each of the boys thrived in his new home.
or
        All of the boys thrived in their new home (or homes).

Some, on the other hand, is different: it swings both ways, depending upon the context and the number (singular or plural) of its referent:
        Some of the collection was worth its asking price.
        Some of the bidders were over their heads.

Collective nouns as antecedents
A collective noun like family, committee, team, audience, etc. may take a singular pronoun (when functioning as a single unit) or a plural pronoun (when functioning as individual members). Thus,
   The audience's standing ovation signaled its pure delight.
   The audience demonstrated their varying degrees of pleasure.

Sexist (oh my!) language
Being both politically and grammatically correct is not so difficult as it sometimes seems. Simply remember that most problems arise when we try to express the universal with the singular. Hence we get the awkward
          Everyone has the right to his or her opinion.
or the wrong
          Everyone has the right to their opinion.

Why not simply pluralize? It works, it's right, and it reminds us those old "universal" expressions never were really meant to include us all:
         All people have the right to their opinions (as long as
         those opinions are rational and informed).

Unnecessary shift in pronoun


     This error is typically represented by an incorrect change from a personal pronoun to an indefinite pronoun or vice versa. It most often occurs when we are unsure of how formal or informal we want our tone to be, or when we try clumsily to avoid sexist language.
     Take the following example in which the shift is from the relatively formal indefinite third-person pronoun one to the less formal second-person personal pronoun you.

       When one sees a Dürer woodcut, you recognize it
       immediately.

To keep "one" in the dependent opening clause, we would have to use the third person singular pronoun in the main clause:

       When one sees a Dürer woodcut, he or she recognizes
       it immediately.

We now have a correct sentence, but one with the cumbersome and somewhat stuffy "he or she."

For a less formal solution, try pluralizing. And for the least formal solution, directly address your reader in both clauses:

       When people see a Dürer woodcut, they recognize
       it immediately.

       When you see a Dürer woodcut, you recognize it
       immediately.

Vague pronoun reference


     A pronoun takes the place of a noun thereby avoiding possibly tedius repetition. The noun is called an "antecedent," a referent that goes before the pronoun. The pronoun will by logic attach itself to the nearest preceding noun it can. A pronoun therefore must be preceded by a noun to which it does refer, and the noun that immediately precedes a pronoun must be its intended antecedent.
    The "vague pronoun reference" error occurs most commonly when there's no true noun to serve as antecedent or when two or more preceding nouns make the actual antecedent ambiguous.

     During her brief five-year reign, Queen Mary had almost
     300 Protestant dissenters burned at the stake, which
     earned her the nickname "Bloody Mary."

"Which" is a relative pronoun that logically refers to the general sense of the main clause but grammatically refers to nothing because it has no noun acting as antecedent. We correct the sentence by supplying the noun:

     During her brief five-year reign, Queen Mary had almost
     300 Protestant dissenters burned at the stake in shows
     of religious intolerance that earned her the nickname
     "Bloody Mary."

If no antecedent causes problems, too many possible antecedents bring trouble as well:

     Mary, Queen of Scots, was condemned to death by her
     half-sister Elizabeth I, at least in part, because she was
     Catholic.

Grammar implies that she stands for Elizabeth I, while history tells us Mary I was Catholic and Elizabeth Protestant. Therefore the pronoun reference is ambiguous and "vague." We can clarify the sentence in one of two ways.

We can substitute a noun for the offending pronoun:
     Mary, Queen of Scots, was condemned to death by her
     half-sister Elizabeth I in part, at least, because the
     former
was Catholic.

Or we can reorder the sentence:
     Elizabeth I condemned her half-sister Mary, Queen of Scots,
     to death in part, at least, because she was Catholic.

  


Miscellaneous Other Errors & Other Fixes

     Two final errors complete our list of the top fifteen. They are the "misplaced modifier" and the "wrong word choice" (referred to in the old days as "faulty diction"). Both of them can be highly embarrassing to the writer and hilarious to the savvy reader. So pay attention.

Misplaced modifier


     No grammatical error is more central to comedy than this one. The American Film Institute lists Groucho Marx's play on a misplaced modifier among the 100 Greatest Movie Quotes of All Time.

In the role of a famed and fraudulant explorer, Groucho announces: "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know."

Hearing Groucho's first sentence, we logically assume Groucho was still in his pajamas when he shot the elephant. But as soon as Groucho adds the second sentence, the laws of grammar and syntax take over. Suddenly, the modifying phrase "in my pajamas" attaches, as grammatically it should, to the nearest noun, "an elephant." And we are hurtled into a world where elephants wear pj's and Groucho's zany illogic rules.

So if you don't want to be caught with an elephant in your pajamas, be sure to place your modifier as close as possible to the noun it really modifies and make their connection grammatically as well as logically clear:

NO: We watched the eagles swoop and dive in awe and wonder.
YES: In awe and wonder, we watched the eagles swoop.

NO: As a child, my mother warned me against sloth and ennui.
YES: My mother warned me as a child against sloth ....
or
YES: When I was a child,
my mother warned me ....

NO: The President considered using nuclear weapons in a July cabinet meeting.
YES: The President in a July cabinet meeting considered using nuclear weapons.
or
YES: In a July cabinet meeting, the President considered using nuclear weapons.

Wrong word choice


     Some wrong word choices and homonym confusions are common:

     cite means to quote — site is a place
     complement means to go with — compliment is to flatter
     principal is the head or main — principle is a guideline or law
     affect is the verb to have an effect on — effect is the noun
     respectfully shows respect — respectively is in a given order
     irrespective is without regard to
     irregardless isn't a word at all.

Most of us, however, have our own special homonymic demons, as tricky as continually/continuously or as simple as than/then. So it's best to keep a glossary of words you often confuse, and check yourself as you write. It's also best to avoid long Latinate constructions and stick with clear, direct, straightforward diction, with words you — and your readers — know.

 

Adapted from Andrea Lunsford’s The Everyday Writer, 3rd edition, Bedford/St. Martin’s.