A splice is a connection. Comma-splices result from connecting two main clauses with only a comma. By itself, a comma is not a sign to dump to long-term memory, and thus the reader passes the splice and attempts to chunk the words in the second main clause into the pattern of the first. They do not fit, and the reader becomes confused. A run-on, which results from the writer moving from one main clause to another without any punctuation, results in the same problem. For example (s95pr03):

\-\[I people want to work] they need to deal {with society} \R\and dress codes {in the work place} can help people adapt {to standards} enforced {by society.}

Without a comma before the "and", the reader will chunk "dress codes" as part of the prepositional phrase {"with society and dress codes"}. I have therefore considered it a run on.

     It is almost always possible to fix a these errors by replacing the comma with a comma plus "and," or by cutting the splice into two separate sentences. Normally, howver, there are reasons for the errors. In this section, we will examine some of them, and we will examine better ways to fix them.

     As with some fragments, some comma-splices and run-ons may be caused by an over-loaded short-term memory.

(from s95pr54):
\-\Some women prefer this length especially [if they are not tall women and are average height,] \,\that is basically the style and length {of skirts} {in the fashion industry} today.

The subordinate "if" clause lies between two main clauses. What may have happened is that the writer penned the first main clause, then the "if" clause. In the process of writing the "if" clause, the first main clause may have slipped from STM, thereby leaving the "if" clause free to be attached to the second main clause. Sample s95pr54 includes two fragments as well as some other strained constructions. It also appears to contain a higher than average number of gerunds and gerundives. It would be extremely interesting to know what and how this student was taught about grammar.

     The simplest ways to fix a comma-splice or run-on are to use a period and capital letter, or to use a comma with "and," "or," or "but." Although both methods will fix the error, both also undercut the more complex syntactic relationship toward which the writer was probably striving. The following section examines better ways to fix such errors and gives several examples from analyzed texts.

A Semicolon to Emphasize Differences

     A semicolon is often used to separate main clauses which present contrasting ideas. My favorite example of this is

He went swimming; she did the dishes.

In effect, the semicolon invites the reader to consider the differences. It implies that (as always???) the man had fun while the woman got stuck with the work.

(from s95pr25):
\-\The offender has to be {in a position} {of power,} \,\the victim has to be {in a position} [where he/she could be damaged {in some way} (i.e. losing a job).]

(from s95pr31):
\-\It is unfortunate [that these problems do arise {in the world} today,] \,\however [if people could tend to be more reasonable and less money hungry,] there would be less and less cases {of sexual harassment and other related cases} [that waste the tax payers dollars.]

(from s95pr37):
\-\He should pay more attention {to his work,} \,\[even though he is the supervisor,] he was the only one [who reported it.]

Note that the second main clause implies a contrast -- he wasn't paying attention to his work.

(from s95pr42):
\-\{In a work environment} distractions lower productivity. (an employers concern) \R\{on the other hand} an employer has to give his/her employees a little leeway, {in order} to keep up morale, therefore, increacing productivity.

Once again, there is an opposition in the ideas in the two main clauses. The period after "productivity" may have two causes -- the writer wasn't sure of how to punctuate the appositive "an employers [sic] concern," and the writer wasn't sure of how to handle the punctuation between the two main clauses.

(from s95pr59):
\-\{To one person} a touch {on the leg} may just something to shrug off, \,\{to another} that gesture may be considered {as sexual harassment.}

(also from s95pr59):
\-\The supervisor may had been using his beliefs {as a basis} {for his complaint,} \,\[if not] the women had a right to do [what they did.]

(from s95pr66):
\-\The supervisor should not be concerned {with [what the women are wearing,]} \,\he should be concerned {about making a deal.}

(from s95pr44):
\-\There are probably people [who aren't bothered {by [what they wear,]}] \,\some probably like it, \-\but there are those [who get too worked up and get distracted {from their jobs.}]

In this case the writer is attempting to create three contrasting groups -- those who aren't bothered by what the women wear; those who probably like it; and those who get too worked up.

(from s95pr14):
\-\{In this case} the men say [that the short dress' was distracting,] \,\I find that hard to believe.

A semicolon here would avoid the problem of the comma-splice and emphasize the difference between "the men" and "I."

A Dash or Colon to Emphasize Details

     A dash or colon used to separate main clauses is interpreted by many educated readers to mean that the clause(s) after the dash or colon contain examples or more details about the idea presented in the previous main clause. A colon is considered formal; a dash, informal.

(from s95pr14):
\-\[When I worked {in a restraunt}] the boss was allways getting {on the womens cases} [when they wore an {out of regulation skirt,}] \,\usually they were sent home to change, \-\or [if they refused] they would be fired or put {on suspension.}

The last two main clauses illustrate how the boss was getting on their cases. Thus the comma before "usually" can be replaced by a dash or colon.

(from s95pr23):
\-\{In my essay} I'm going to give name {to the these people,} \,\the two women's names will be Chris and Kathy, \-\and the supervisor will be Bob.

(from P1_02):
\-\This causes the next problem {of closing Route 262} \R\[if there would be an accident {along the reservoir}] Route 262 is the only way to get {to it.}

The subordinate clause could go with either the preceding or following main clause. I have opted for the later, because with the "if" clause, the second main clause presents a more detailed explanation of the "problem." Once again I believe that the writer sensed this relationship but did not know how to punctuate it by using either a dash or a colon.

Subordination to Emphasize Logical Connections

     Many teachers are familiar with fragments that result from subordinate clauses that have been detached from their main clause. A related error is the comma splice or run-on in which the writer saw a logical connection but either failed or didn't know how to use a subordinate conjunction.

(from s95pr20):
\-\But then you have to look {at the men} \R\many things could affect him.

\-\But then you have to look at the men, [because many things could affect them.]

(from s95pr18):
\-\This is probably a case {of the male supervisor} [that didn't like to look at a nice leg,] \,\his wife is probably fat.

This is an interesting example because the sample from which it is taken averages 12.3 words per main clause. It includes a fragment in addition to this comma-splice, and it has six subordinate clauses embedded at level one, but none at level two. I may be mistaken, but it seems that what the writer was trying to say would have required a second level embedding and thus may have been beyond his reach:

\-\This is probably a case {of the male supervisor} [that [because his wife is probably fat,] didn't like to look at a nice leg.]