The Punctuation Mistake That Could Snub Your Spouse

Commas might be the most versatile punctuation tool in a writer’s arsenal. One of their many jobs is to set off nonrestrictive clauses — those that add extra, nonessential information. Consider this statement: “My spouse, who is an early riser, makes me coffee every morning.” Compare that to “My spouse who is an early riser makes me coffee every morning.” Which punctuation makes more sense? If you chose the first sentence, you’d be correct — but why? 

The second sentence, which omits commas, turns the phrase into a restrictive clause, suggesting that the speaker is identifying a particular spouse from among multiple possibilities. In other words, without the commas, it reads as though there is more than one spouse. Here’s how to avoid this accidental misunderstanding.

The sentence “My spouse who is an early riser makes me coffee every morning” inadvertently suggests that the speaker has more than one spouse, but that there is specifically one who is an early riser. Because “who is an early riser” is not set off by commas, it becomes a restrictive clause — one that contains essential information that identifies a specific person or thing. However, in this context, the reader can likely infer that the missing commas are a grammatical error, not a slight against the spouse.

Alternatively, consider these two sentences:

“Spouses who make their partners coffee every morning deserve extra appreciation.”

“Spouses, who make their partners coffee every morning, deserve extra appreciation.”

The first sentence contains a restrictive clause. It refers specifically to spouses who make coffee every morning, not necessarily all spouses.

The second sentence treats making coffee as additional information about spouses, implying all spouses make coffee for their partners every morning. This likely isn’t the intended meaning, and the commas should be removed.

Restrictive clauses narrow the scope. Here’s another example: “I’m taking my friend who lives in Boston out for their birthday.” The restrictive clause “who lives in Boston” suggests the speaker has multiple friends and is specifying the one who lives in Boston. If we add commas and make the clause nonrestrictive, the sentence becomes, “I’m taking my friend, who lives in Boston, out for their birthday.” This treats the friend’s location as additional information. There is no “correct” version here; it depends on the context and goal of the conversation.

To correct the grammatical offense against the spouse in the very first example we gave, the writer needs to add a pair of commas to set off the clause: “My spouse, who is an early riser, makes me coffee every morning.” The commas indicate a nonrestrictive clause, adding nonessential information (their spouse wakes up early) to the statement.

A nonrestrictive clause can be removed without changing the basic identification of the noun. Consider this example: “The cake, which my partner ordered from a local bakery, was delicious.” The meaning remains essentially the same with or without the extra information between the commas — the main point is that the cake was delicious. If the commas were removed, the clause would become restrictive, suggesting there were several cakes and that the writer is referring only to the one ordered from the local bakery. This is why context matters when distinguishing restrictive clauses from nonrestrictive clauses.

Here’s another example in which commas make a big difference in the context of the statement:

Nonrestrictive: “My sister, who loves Italian food, planned my birthday dinner.”

This sentence suggests that the writer has one sister who planned a birthday dinner and happens to love Italian food. The clause is nonrestrictive and provides nonessential information.

Restrictive: “My sister who loves Italian food planned my birthday dinner.”

This sentence suggests that the writer has more than one sister, but the one who loves Italian food planned the birthday dinner. It uses a restrictive clause to identify which sister, and no commas are needed.

Restrictive clauses don’t inherently imply multiple spouses or cakes, but they do narrow the reference to a specific person or thing. When in doubt, try removing the clause. Can the reader still determine which person or thing you’re referring to? If so, the clause is nonrestrictive, so it should be set off with commas. If the clause is needed to identify the noun, it’s likely restrictive and doesn’t need commas. Although this test isn’t foolproof, it can help keep your punctuation precise and your spouse happy.