Yes, there are some rules for commas. Some are strict, some aren’t. Some are debated (the Oxford comma), some aren’t. And some commas are just a question of style.
I’d like to draw your attention on a comma issue which is not a question of style.
You cannot use a comma to separate the verb from its subject or object. Look:
John, ate some bread.
John ate, some bread.
But you do see commas floating around verbs. That’s because they come in pairs. Look:
John, without hesitation, ate some bread.
John ate, without hesitation, some bread.
See how those commas come in pairs, because we inserted “without hesitation” into the sentence?
I was prompted to write this article after struggling through this article. I struggled because the article content was interesting — but boy, does the author have comma issues. Hopefully they’ll fix them. In the meantime, I’ve used the text to provide you with real-world examples, corrected. You can try your skills at spotting missing paired commas. (And do read the article, though, it is interesting.)
In 1748, the British politician and aristocrat John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich used a lot of his free time for playing cards.
Can you spot the missing comma? This is a situation where the first paired comma was used, but not the second. The “inserted” text in the sentence is “the 4th Earl of Sandwich”, which should therefore be surrounded by commas. This one is actually tricky, because it looks like we have avoided placing a comma between the subject and the verb. But we have. Better:
In 1748, the British politician and aristocrat John Montagu, the 4th Earl of Sandwich, used a lot of his free time for playing cards.
Here is another one:
Since recently a good friend of mine, gave me an introduction to the power of storytelling, I wanted to learn more.
This one has a comma which shouldn’t be there. No reason for a pair, as the sentence is not “Since John, a good friend of mine, gave me…”. Corrected:
Since recently a good friend of mine gave me an introduction to the power of storytelling, I wanted to learn more.
I’ll have to admit that I’m not 100% certain about the next one:
When we are being told a story though, things change dramatically found researchers in Spain.
Don’t you also want a comma in front of “found”? It probably has something to do with the fact that instead of the usual SVO order, we’ve switched to something like OVS. Here, try this one instead:
When we are being told a story though, things change dramatically, found researchers in Spain.
Isn’t it better?
Here’s one which might have more than comma issues, but let’s stick to the commas:
The brains of the person telling a story and listening to it, can synchronize, says Uri Hasson from Princeton.
I would suggest one of these two alternatives, though my prefer would probably add in an extra word or two:
The brains of the person telling a story and listening to it can synchronize, says Uri Hasson from Princeton.
The brains of the person telling a story, and listening to it, can synchronize, says Uri Hasson from Princeton.
And a last one which is a classic example of paired commas:
A story, if broken down into the simplest form is a connection of cause and effect.
The “inserted text” here is “if broken down into the simplest form”. Proof? The sentence would be fine without it:
A story is a connection of cause and effect.
Now, let’s add in this if-clause, with commas.
A story, if broken down into the simplest form, is a connection of cause and effect.
There we go. Pay attention to your commas!
Disclaimer: I’ve never really studied English grammar properly, so I’m sure there are fancy terms and maybe rules to come up with here that I don’t know of. And also, following a law which probably needs a nice name, as this is a post about language/grammar, there are bound to be mistakes in it that you can point to and laugh at — and probably, God forbid, a misplaced comma.