Practical usage of punctuation marks

 

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I The definition of punctuation marks Punctuation at the end of the sentence Repeated dots Punctuation marks within a sentence The semicolon and the colon The comma CHAPTER II Practical usage of punctuation marks CONCLUSION List of literature

3 5 5 7 9 13 16 17 20 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Though punctuation is not in itself part of the grammatical structure of a language, it cannot be passed over in silence in a treatise on grammar, as it may, and often does, acquire grammatical significance. The other layer of language with which punctuation is connected is of course its phonetic layer, namely intonation.

In different languages the relations between punctuation, intonation, and grammar (syntax) may be different, that is, punctuation may tend to indicate intonation to a greater or to a smaller extent. It certainly always has something to do with grammar. Now from this viewpoint it may be said that in English punctuation is connected with intonation to a greater extent than in Russian. Without going into details at the moment, we may content ourselves with recalling one fact. In Russian there is a strict principle saying that a subordinate clause is always marked off from its head clause by a comma. Thus, practically speaking, if there is no comma in a sentence, we may be certain that there is no subordinate clause in it. In English, on the other hand, there is no such general principle: sometimes a subordinate clause is not separated from its head clause by any punctuation mark whatsoever. This, for instance, is the case in the following sentence: Only now, because of the fact that she felt that she needed a new hat to go with the coat, she decided to say that it cost one hundred and twenty-five instead of one hundred and fifteen. (DREISER) There are several subordinate clauses here which are not marked off by any commas, namely, (1) that she felt (an appositional clause to fact). (2) that she needed a new hat to go with the coat (an object clause to felt). (3) that it cost one hundred and twenty-five instead of one hundred and fifteen (an object clause to say). The absence of commas here is due to the fact that in actual speech there is no intonational break between the subordinate clause and its head clause in any of these cases (this of course has to be ascertained by phonetic experiment and analysis). There are only two commas in the sentence, namely after now (this comma marks the beginning of the loose adverbial modifier because of the fact... with all the subordinate clauses belonging to it), and another after coat, to mark the end of the whole group. Thus from the number of commas no deduction could be made about the number of subordinate clauses found within the sentence.

This general characteristic of English punctuation as distinct from Russian should be kept in mind in dealing with it.

We will no longer speak of the intonational value of punctuation and we will concentrate on its grammatical significance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

The definition of punctuation marks

1. Punctuation at the end of the sentence

 

Let us first take those punctuation marks which have reference to the sentence as such (that is, as a unit), and serve to point to the end of a sentence and to its Communication type. These two functions, though essentially different, are performed by punctuation marks simultaneously.

The punctuation marks performing these functions are, the full stop (.), the question mark (?), and the exclamation mark (!).

The full stop may, in general, be said to be a signal of the end of a sentence, though its use as a sign of abbreviation (in such expressions as а. т., р. т., В. С., A. D., etc.) shows that its sentence-ending function is not necessarily the only one. However, with this reservation the function of the full stop as a signal of sentence end may be said to be almost certain.¹

The other function of the full stop refers to the communication character of the sentence. Namely, a full stop shows that the sentence is not interrogative and not exclamatory. That is the only conclusion in this way that can be drawn from it. The question whether the sentence is declarative or imperative cannot be settled by the presence of a full stop at the end. Imperative sentences with a full stop at the end are quite possible, though not exactly frequent. Here are a few examples: Oh, just look at the collar, and those sleeves and those pockets. (DREISER) Don't go acting like this. (Idem) The utmost that can be said in this respect is that it is much more likely for a sentence ending with a full stop to be a declarative than an imperative sentence.

The other two punctuation marks which can signal the end of a sentence are the question mark and the exclamation mark. This function of theirs may be said to be almost certain. We are, however, bound to say "almost", because we must take into account some special cases, mainly in direct speech, where there may be a question mark or an exclamation mark, though the sentence including direct speech may run on after that, as in the following examples: "Renegade!" said Mr Blythe. (GALSWORTHY) "Why can one always tell an Englishman?" said John. (Idem) Of course there are two things to be distinguished here. The sentence "Renegade!" as pronounced by Mr Blythe is certainly finished where the exclamation mark stands, and so is the sentence "Why can one always tell an Englishman?" as pronounced by John, at the point where the interrogation mark stands. But the sentences "Renegade!" said Mr Blythe and "Why can one always tell an Englishman?" said

It should be noted, too, that in recent times the use of the full stop in abbreviations tends to be restricted. For instance, nowadays no full stop is used if the last letter of an abbreviation is the last letter of the word, as in Mr, Mrs. There is also a tendency to drop the full stop in such abbreviations as n (for noun), v (for verb) in dictionaries, etc. This makes the function of the full stop to mark the sentence end more certain.

John, as written by Galsworthy, are not finished at those points. They run on with the word said in both cases and the name of the speaker. So it will perhaps be best to say that the question mark and the exclamation mark do signal the end of the sentence in one way, and do not signal it in another way. There appear to be, as it were, two layers of sentence ends in such cases as these.²

The functions of the two punctuation marks to show the communication type of the sentence are unmistakable.

The question mark certainly always shows the sentence to be interrogative, even though the question contained in it may be rhetorical, which does not affect the grammatical type of the sentence. The only thing to be noted here is that a question mark is also always used at the end of sentences with a so-called tag-question, as in the following example: By the way, you didn't chance to bring along your dress suit with you, did you? (DREISER) or But you didn't have to fall all over and dream in his eyes, either, did you? (Idem) Such sentences may be taken in different ways. They might, for instance, be termed half-interrogative, or they might be taken as compound sentences, with the first clause declarative, and the second interrogative. But whichever way we choose to look at them, some interrogative quality is found all the same, either in a diluted way in the sentence as a whole, or else in a concentrated state in the latter part of it.

The exclamation mark is a sufficiently certain signal of the sentence being either exclamatory or emotional. It is obvious that a non-exclamatory and non-emotional sentence cannot have an exclamation mark at its end. As to the other peculiarities of the sentence, namely, whether it is an exclamatory sentence, or an emotional, declarative, interrogative, or imperative one, the exclamation mark, of course, does not say anything.

The other punctuation marks have no reference to the sentence as such, except, we may say, indirectly. Some of them do, and some do not, show that the sentence is not finished. Let us first have a look at the punctuation marks which definitely show that the sentence is not finished. These are: the comma (,), the semicolon (;), and the colon (:). If we see any of these punctuation marks in the text, we may be quite sure that the sentence is not finished and will run on.

The other remaining punctuation marks are not certain signs of this. Let us, for instance, consider the dash (—). This may occasionally occur as a sign that the sentence is interrupted, that is,

The full stop does not appear in such ambiguous positions. It is always replaced by a comma when the inserted sentence of the type said he is added.

1.2 Repeated Dots 

it will not run on, though it is not syntactically rounded off. In this case the following word ought to begin with a capital letter: if it began with a small one, this would mean that the sentence is running on. Here are two examples of an interrupted sentence ending with a dash: "But we ain't got Old Joe. We got —" "Shut up, you fool!" (M. MITCHELL) "Why, Uncle Peter! What on earth —" (Idem)

The repeated dots (three and more often four) are also sometimes used in this way. They are a signal showing interruption, if the following word begins with a capital letter (we must set apart cases when that word is a proper name). Repeated dots are, however, much less frequently used in English than in Russian, where they are the usual means of showing interruption in the sentence. Here is an example of this rather rare use in English: Was he not merely thinking of an accident that, had it occurred or could it but occur in his case. .. Ah, — but that could it but occur. There was the dark and evil thought about which he must not, he must not think. He MUST NOT. And yet — and yet.. . He was an excellent swimmer and could swim ashore, no doubt — whatever the distance. (DREISER) Let us first consider the first repeated dots (after case). The sentence is obviously interrupted, as the attributive subordinate clause beginning with the pronoun that and modifying the noun accident is never brought to an end; it ought to have been resumed after the end of the second-degree subordinate clause (a clause of condition) had it occurred or could it but occur in his case, but is not resumed (the capital initial A of the following Ah proves that a new sentence is beginning there). So, in this particular case, the repeated dots stand at the end of an interrupted sentence, though they in themselves would not be sufficient proof that what follows is the beginning of a new sentence.³

As to the repeated dots after and yet, it must be said that the words and yet (repeated twice) cannot in themselves be a sentence, and as the following word He begins with a capital Я, it is clear that it is again the beginning of a new sentence, so that the preceding sentence is shown to be interrupted, and the dots clearly stand at the end of this interrupted sentence.

In other cases, of course, both the dash and the repeated dots may come at a place in the sentence which is not its end: the following word begins with a small letter, which is proof that the sentence is continued. Let us first have a look at a dash in such circumstances: It was wrong — wrong — terribly wrong. (DREISER) As the second wrong and terribly begin with a small letter, it is clear that neither the first nor the second dash stands at the end of a sentence, which runs right on from the word it to the third and last wrong.

As for repeated dots used elsewhere than at the end of a sentence, they are very seldom met with in texts. Here is one example: And yet as she walked home from this trivial and fairly representative scene, her heart was not nearly so angry as it was sad and sore because of the love and comfort that had vanished and was not likely ever to come again. .. ever. . . ever. Oh, how terrible.. . how terrible! (DREISER) In both sentences the repeated dots are in each case followed by a word beginning with a small letter, and that proves that the sentence is running on.

So much for the possible significance of punctuation marks for the end of a sentence and for its communication type.

1.3 Punctuation marks within a sentence

Now we come to the meaning of punctuation marks within a sentence. We must first of all distinguish between punctuation marks going in pairs, those which can, but need not, form pairs, and those that never form pairs.

There are two of them belonging to the first category: brackets (parentheses) and inverted commas. These cannot occur in any other way but in pairs. Two other punctuation marks may, but need not necessarily, be used in pairs. These are dashes and commas. If we have a dash or a comma in a sentence we cannot at once tell whether it makes part of a pair or not: that will only appear as we read on. Two dashes occurring at a close interval from each other may or may not form a pair: this will only be made clear by the grammatical and semantic conditions of the sentence; and the same may be said about two commas.

Let us first have a look at sentences where two dashes do form a pair.

They — Messrs Foster, Crockett and Porter — had been used to make surgical instruments, which were what she would now require. (R. MACAULAY) And the factory section which lay opposite the small city — across the Mohawk — was little more than a red and gray assemblage of buildings with here and there a smoke-slack projecting upward, and connected with the city by two bridges — a dozen blocks apart — one of them directly at his depot, a wide traffic bridge across which traveled a car-line following the curves of Central Avenue, dotted here and there with stores and small houses. (DREISER)⁴ There are two pairs of dashes here: the first pair consisting of the dash after city and the one after the Mohawk, and the second consisting of the dash after bridges and the one after apart. That they really are pairs, and not merely a chance accumulation of dashes, is shown by grammatical and lexical features of the sentence, namely, for the first pair of dashes, by the fact that if we omit the words enclosed by the dashes, across the Mohawk, the sentence will lose a closer definition of the site of the factory section described, but will not be changed in any other way: in fact the words across the Mohawk give a more exact description of the site, as characterised by the preceding text (opposite the small city). The phrase across the Mohawk is a loose adverbial modifier. As to the second pair of dashes, it clearly encloses a loose attribute to the noun bridges, the distance between them being stated to be a dozen blocks. In that case, too, if the words a dozen blocks apart are dropped, the distance between the two bridges will be unknown, but the structure of the sentence will not be otherwise changed.

In other cases two dashes, though they may be close to each other, do not form a pair, and this again becomes clear from grammatical and semantic considerations. Let us take an example from Galsworthy: All I meant was that when you tell me a thing is going to cost so much, I like to — well, in fact, I — like to know where I am. That these two dashes do not form a pair is clear from the fact that we cannot drop the words standing between them without getting an inadmissible text: All I meant was that when you tell me a thing is going to cost so much, I like to like to know where I am. So each of the two dashes has to be taken as a separate unit, and in fact, in this sentence each of them expresses a stopping, or hesitation on the part of the speaker.

In a similar way, we must find out whether two commas form a pair or not. Here is an example of two commas forming a pair: He looked rather dirty and stupid, and even as much flaminess as that of the young cock, which he had tied by the leg, would never glow in him. (LAWRENCE) If we drop the words between the comma which comes after cock and the one which comes after leg, we shall lose a characteristic of the cock (indeed, these words form a subordinate attributive clause), and the text would run on without them. Thus the two correlative commas are vised to single out a certain element in the sentence (a subordinate clause).

The same may be said about two commas forming a pair in the following sentence: Life had worn him down on one side, till, like that family of which he was the head, he had lost balance. (GALSWORTHY) The words like that family of which he was the head, consisting of a prepositional phrase and a subordinate attributive clause, may be dropped, and the result would be the loss of additional information based upon a comparison between "him" (Old Jolyon Forsyte) and his family: the sentence would run on: Life had worn him down on one side till he had lost balance⁵.

In other cases, again, two commas within a sentence may have nothing to do with each other, as in this example: His features were wide and flattened, and he had prominent, pale eyes... (MAUGHAM) The comma after flattened and the comma after prominent are not in any way connected with each other, the words standing between them do not form any sort of syntactical unit, and they could not be safely dropped without damaging the syntactical structure of the sentence, as will be seen from the following experiment: His features were wide and flattened pale eyes, which is not grammatically tenable. Indeed the two commas perform quite different functions here: the comma after flattened marks off the first clause of the compound sentence from its second clause, while the one after prominent serves to separate from each other two homogeneous attributes (prominent and pale) to the word eyes.

The number of single commas, that is, commas not connected with one another, is probably much greater than that of commas going in pairs.

The remaining punctuation marks never form pairs. For instance, semicolons, though of course there may be two or three or more of them Within a sentence, never combine into pairs.

Let us take a sentence with two semicolons in it: We must pass over De Quincey, whose romantic prose, as in the Mail Coach and the Opium Eater, is infused with the imaginative quality of a dream consciousness; Lamb, with his gentle, whimsical Elia; Hazlitt, whose high spirits and easy-flowing style in My First Acquaintance with the Poets belie his assurance that he found writing so hard. (NORTON)

The same may be said about colons: they never go in pairs either, and it must be added that we seldom find more than one colon in a sentence.

Punctuation marks forming pairs always single out some separate part of the sentence. This may be either a loose secondary part, or a subordinate clause, or a parenthesis, or, last not least, an insertion. We will briefly consider some examples. A number of young English poets — brought up, no doubt, to the notes of Henley's anthology, Lyra Heroica — were either killed during the World War or died while it was going on. (CHADBURN) The two dashes single out a loose attribute, and the first two commas a parenthesis. James Elroy Flecker was a more original poet. Though his poems are usually romantic — The Golden Journey to Samarkand, the prologue to his Eastern play, Hassan, might serve as a general title to them all — he is less oracular than Tennyson, less copious and more self-critical. (CHADBURN) The inserted clause coming in between a subordinate clause of concession and the main clause is marked off by dashes.

Now, whether the portion of the sentence enclosed between two commas, or two dashes, or parentheses, is a loose part, or a subordinate clause, or an insertion, has of course to be determined by careful study of the text and even that may sometimes fail to give a completely certain result.

1.4 The Semicolon and the Colon

Now let us proceed to a study of the non-paired punctuation marks with their individual peculiarities, from the grammatical viewpoint.

What grammatical information do we derive from a semicolon in a sentence, that is, what can we suppose about he structure of the sentence, before we take a look at the actual words composing it? It is not possible here to say anything with absolute certainty, as the use of the semicolon is not circumscribed by strict rules. However, more likely than not, a sentence containing a semicolon will be a composite sentence, and very likely a compound one, with the semicolon separating two independent clauses from one another. This is the case, for instance, in the following examples: He had tried to kill Mrs Moore this evening, on the roof of the Nawab Bahadur's house; but she still eluded him, and the atmosphere remained tranquil. (FORSTER) Both before and after the semicolon there is at least one independent clause. I had only seen the poor creature for a few hours when she was taken ill; really this has been needlessly distressing, it spoils one's home-coming. (Idem) In this particular case what precedes the semicolon is a combination of a main and a subordinate clause; what follows it is a combination of two independent clauses. If we were to apply the term "sentence" somewhat loosely, we might say that the semicolon is preceded by a complex sentence and followed by a compound one. What matters, however, is that in each of the two halves there is an independent clause, and thus the sentence may be termed compound in the first place.

Occasionally, however, this general principle of a semicolon being a sign of a compound sentence will not hold good. There may be special reason inducing a writer to use a semicolon outside a compound sentence; and this will mainly happen in a sentence having a certain amount of commas within it, when some division in the sentence has to be marked off by some punctuation mark stronger than a comma.

Thus the semicolon is a punctuation mark affording high probability, but not certainty, of the sentence being compound.

The colon, in so far as grammar is concerned, is rather similar in function to the semicolon. It also is a pretty sure signal of a compound sentence, with the additional shade of meaning of the latter part giving some explanation or illustration of what has been stated in the former. Here is a clear example from E. M. Forster: And it seemed to him for a time that the dead awaited him, and when the illusion faded it left behind it an emptiness that was almost guilt: "This really is the end," he thought, "and I gave her the final blow." What follows the colon is the statement of his thoughts» illustrating the idea of guilt mentioned in the first part (that preceding the colon).