Introduction
A solid understanding of sentence structure (see previous lesson) lays a solid foundation for a discussion of punctuation. Be encouraged: although there are many kinds of punctuation and many circumstances for its use, the CLT tests the concept in relatively limited ways. Additionally, many punctuation questions also concern sentence structure and are best addressed via the Clause Test recently introduced. This module concerns the aspects of punctuation not covered by the Clause Test.
Approach Question
Should you leave the sentence below as it is or opt for one of the three alternatives listed in the answer choices?
She had one goal, to win the race.
- NO CHANGE
- She had one goal to win the race.
- She had one goal; to win the race.
- She had one goal: to win the race.
This question ties into the Clause Test in that we can rule out choice C; a semicolon is not permitted when one of the parts of the sentence (“to win the race”) is not an independent clause. Choice B creates a run-on sentence by offering no punctuation whatsoever.
The question is whether the comma or the colon is preferred here. According to the Clause Test alone, a comma could work, but when a punctuation mark with a more specific function (like the colon here) is offered, we need to carefully consider its purpose. A colon is typically used for lists, explanation, or emphasis. A handy summary for the use of a colon is the phrase “Here it is!” If the part of the sentence that the colon could precede seems like it an answer to the announcement, “Here it is!”, a colon is appropriate. For example, imagine a friend walks into the room and says, “I’ve had a terrible day today.” That is grammatically a complete sentence and could end with a period, but don’t you want to know more about your poor friend’s day? Instead of ending the sentence and defying your curiosity, your friend could use a colon instead and go on to explain the “Here it is!” aspect of his/her bad day … what actually happened would follow the colon.
With this in mind, we can confidently choose the sentence with the colon as the right answer here. “She had one goal” might be a grammatically correct sentence if we end it there, but it’s a pretty boring sentence. What is the goal? “Here it is”: to win the race. The answer is D.
Part 1: General Strategy
- Know the Core Rules.
The first step to mastering punctuation questions is understanding the primary rules for common marks. For example:
- Commas: Use to separate elements in a list, after introductory phrases, or to set off non-essential information.
Example: Of all of the different calendar layouts, including horizontal and vertical timetables, Betsy prefers a grid system with a lot of scheduling freedom.
-
Semicolons: Use to connect closely related independent clauses or to separate items in a list when commas are present.
Example: While parrots prefer warmer temperatures, sparrows can thrive anywhere; in fact, the sparrow population is booming in Alaska.
-
Colons: Use to introduce a list, explanation, or emphasis.
Example: He lost his car keys in the snow, bumped his head on the mailbox looking for them, and acquired mild frostbite: it was not shaping up to be a good morning for Kevin.
-
Dashes (also known as em dashes): Use for emphasis or to set off parenthetical information.
Example: The Tichenor House—located in Long Beach, CA—is one of America’s architectural gems and structural oddities.
A good rule of thumb is to think of dashes like parentheses; just like parentheses, you will typically find two of them. But unlike parentheses, a dash may be single if it starts a phrase that ends the sentence. In this case the period at the end of the sentence closes the phrase in the way a second dash normally would.
Example: Will France just have a revolution every hundred years–as appears to be its custom?
- Punctuation should enable conciseness and clarity.
If you see multiple punctuation options that all seem potentially correct from a grammatical point of view, look for clarity. Which of the answers most helps you understand the meaning of the sentence? Meanwhile, conciseness is always preferred to wordiness. Your guide is the principle that all other things being equal, a shorter answer is better.
- “When in doubt, take it out.”
This handy rhyming phrase is our way of helping you deal with a fact known to English teachers across the globe: people (perhaps especially students!) tend to overuse punctuation, especially commas. Perhaps something makes us nervous when we have too many words in a row without punctuation, but the fact is that the English language can accommodate rather long phrases and clauses without punctuation. If you can’t name a specific reason for a comma to be present and you can read the sentence without having to pause at that particular place, “take it out!” No comma necessary.
- The Handlebar Rule
The Handlebar Rule is implied by what is said about commas under “Know the Core Rules”; commas are used to “set off unnecessary information.” It’s worth expanding this thought with a word picture. Imagine you see a phrase that, when taken out of a sentence, permits the sentence to still exist as a full thought. That phrase should be surrounded by commas. Imagine grabbing these commas like handlebars and pulling the entire phrase out of the sentence. Don’t be afraid to use your hands and arms in imagining this! If you can take hold of those commas and pull out everything in between and the sentence still works, you have found a phrase that should be surrounded by commas. Grab those “handlebars”.
Practice Passage
In this section, you’ll find an excerpt from Alfred North Whitehead’s *Science and the Modern World, *taken from lectures delivered in 1925. We have included five Punctuation questions to go with the passage.
Another contrast that singles out science from among the European movements of the sixteenth and seventeenth [1] centuries, is its universality. Modern science was born in Europe, but its home is the whole world. In the last two centuries, there has been a long and confused impact of Western modes upon the civilization of Asia. The wise men of the East have been puzzling, and are puzzling, as to what may be the regulative secret of life which can be passed from West to East without the wanton destruction of their own inheritance which they so rightly prize. More and more it is becoming evident that what the West can most readily give to the East is its science and its scientific outlook. This is transferable from country to country, and from race to race, wherever there is a rational society.
In this course of lectures I shall not discuss the details of scientific discovery. My theme is the energizing of a state of mind in the modern world, its broad generalizations, and its impact upon other spiritual forces. There are two ways of reading [2] history: forward and backward. In the history of thought, we require both methods. A climate of [3] opinion to use the happy phrase of a seventeenth-century writer—requires for its understanding the consideration of its antecedents and its issues. Accordingly, in this lecture I shall consider some of the antecedents of our modern approach to the investigation of nature.
In the first [4] place–there can be no living science unless there is a widespread instinctive conviction in the existence of an Order of Things, and, in particular, of an Order of Nature. I have used the word instinctive advisedly. It does not matter what men say in words, so long as their activities are controlled by settled instincts. The words may ultimately destroy the instincts. But until this has occurred, words do not count. This remark is important in respect to the history of scientific thought. For we shall find that since the time of Hume, the fashionable scientific philosophy has been such as to deny the rationality of science. This conclusion lies upon the surface of Hume’s philosophy. Take, for example, the following passage from Section IV of his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding:
“In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could [5] not, therefore be discovered in the cause; and the first invention or conception of it, à priori, must be entirely arbitrary.”
If the cause in itself discloses no information as to the effect so that the first invention of it must be entirely arbitrary, it follows at once that science is impossible, except in the sense of establishing entirely arbitrary connections which are not warranted by anything intrinsic to the natures either of causes or effects. Some variant of Hume’s philosophy has generally prevailed among men of science. But scientific faith has risen to the occasion and has tacitly removed the philosophic mountain.
- centuries, is
A. NO CHANGE
B. centuries; is
C. centuries–is
D. centuries is
The answer is D. The challenge of this question is understanding that a long subordinate clause extends from “that” to “centuries”. The verb “is”, in our underlined portion, goes all the way back to the second word of the sentence, “contrast”, as its subject. Ask yourself, would you put a comma in the sentence, “Another contrast is its universality”? This example shows the reason for the general rule that we don’t place commas between main subjects and main verbs in a sentence. Despite the relatively long interval with no punctuation whatsoever, this is indeed a “When in doubt, take it out” situation. No comma is necessary; an em dash would not make sense as there is no reason for the function of a parenthesis here; and a semicolon would fail the Clause Test because the portion “is its universality” could not stand on its own as a sentence.
- history: forward
A. NO CHANGE
B. history forward
C. history; forward
D. history. Forward
The answer is A. This is a “here it is!” situation with a straightforward introduction. “There are two ways of reading history.” Well, what are they? This demands elaboration, and the rest of the sentence gives it to us. Notice also that, according to the Clause Test, choices C and D are impossible because “forward and backward” is certainly not an independent clause that could stand on its own. But we do need some punctuation between the part introducing and the part introduced. So Choice B is out; the colon works perfectly.
- opinion to
A. NO CHANGE
B. opinion–to
C. opinion, to
D. opinion (to
The answer is B. This question underscores the importance of the advice in the Direct Method to always read the whole sentence. If you do so, you will note an em dash later in the sentence. Is that dash introducing something after it or concluding something before it? It’s the latter, because the phrase “to use the happy phrase of a seventeenth-century writer” is not grammatically essential to the sentence. So we need another em dash before the one that appears after writer. There is no closing parenthesis so answer D is out, and while a comma could work if there wasn’t an em dash later; it can’t in this case because that dash needs a “partner”. Choice B is best.
- place–there
A. NO CHANGE
B. place there
C. place, there
D. place; there
The answer is C. This lesson mentions that a comma is used after an “introductory phrase.” To make sure we have such a thing here, we should make sure the first part of the sentence is not a clause with subject and verb; in that case, we would need to use the Clause Test. But “in the first place” certainly has no verb, so it functions well as a phrase. And it is indeed introductory, marking the first thing that the author wants to state regarding the matter at hand. Some punctuation is necessary here (read the sentence out loud and hear the pause if that helps you to confirm this), but a dash doesn’t fit because we are starting the main part of the sentence, not an inessential side note. And a semicolon would require two complete clauses, so no semicolon here.
- not, therefore be
A. NO CHANGE
B. not therefore, be
C. not, therefore, be,
D. not, therefore, be
The answer is D. Ask yourself whether “therefore” is grammatically essential here. It certainly helps with the logical transition, but without the “therefore” we would still have the coherent clause, “it could not be discovered in the cause”. This means that the Handlebar Rule applies; we can surround that “therefore” with commas and confirm the sense of it by grabbing those commas and pulling out the “therefore”. But let’s not get overzealous with the commas; choice C adds an extra comma after “be”, but it wouldn’t make sense to add a comma between “be” and the predicate of the clause. Both choices with only one comma violate the Handlebar Rule.
For Reflection
- Rate the difficulty of CLT Punctuation questions for you from 1 (no problem) to 5 (problem!). This will help you decide how much time to spend preparing for this passage.
- What does “When in doubt, take it out” mean? What about the Handlebar Rule? Internalize the valuable tools.
- Consider whether you need to put the rules for any particular punctuation mark (comma, colon, em dash, etc.) on a flashcard. Flashcards can help with grammar as well as math!
