An Oxford comma (or serial comma) refers to a comma placed before a conjunction (such as or, and, or but) in a list of three or more items.
“apples, oranges, and pears” (Oxford comma)
vs.
“apples, oranges and pears” (no Oxford comma)
When I was in elementary school we were taught that you should never use an Oxford comma. (Although we weren’t told that was the term for it.) At the time I didn’t think that made much sense because it’s far too trivial to come up with scenarios in which the lack of an Oxford comma would render a construction illogical:
“apples and oranges, left and right, and up and down”
vs,
“apples and oranges, left and right and up and down”
This is often taught as the “exception that proves the rule”. But here’s an example from Contested Will:
“Louis Benezet, an English professor at Dartmouth College, published the first of many Oxfordian volumes, Shakspere, Shakespeare and de Vere.”
Should the be understood as Shakspere, Shakespeare, and de Vere? (Implying an equality between the three names.) Or should it be understood as Shakspere: Shakespeare and de Vere? (In other words, with the latter clause being a subtitle.) Or could it be Shakspere; Shakespeare and de Vere? (With “Shakespeare and de Vere” being joined as a single unit vs. Shakspere.)
No way to know.
Which is why I maintain you should always use an Oxford comma in order to maximize the clarity of your text.
ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS
nat barmore
I was taught that “it is never wrong, and sometimes necessary, so always use it.” That saves figuring out which are the necessary cases, and preserves consistency. Never liked the (apparently more-modern?–all my younger friends were taught as you were: to only use it if necessary) policy of leaving out whenever possible. Partly because it violates the very principle of style and grammar rules, which is to have consistent policies, so that the language is sufficiently consistent that it doesn’t interfere. And partly because so few people correctly judge when to include them, if they follow the policy of being selective. (IME, it usually devolves to “never”, so if any unclear cases come up, there’s no comma.)
The otherwise-excellent “Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation” drove me absolutely batty because, right there in the title, is a blatant violation of her own principles. Not her rules, mind you, because she actually says to leave the serial comma [btw, that’s what Strunk & White call it–never heard it called an “Oxford comma” before] out, unless absolutely necessary. Every other rule/guideline in her book goes for the least common denominator: if there is any chance of confusion, go the safe route; furthermore, always go the safe route in order to eliminate the possibility of misjudging whether the particular instance risks confusion. And then, out of the blue, we get to serial commas, and she says you should take the route that requires judgement calls. IIRC, it’s also the only topic she addresses in her book where doing the opposite of her rules is basically never going to cause a problem (yes, there are some fairly-odd constructions and situations that can lead to confusion, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen one where eliminating the serial comma, without any other changes, made it any better)–with every other topic, just following her rule really is the clearest way to go if you don’t know grammar well enough to suss it out for yourself.
[And, there should be a hyphen in “Zero-Tolerance”–can’t remember if she addresses compound adjectives and adverbs in her book.]
Wednesday, September 15, 2010, 10:07:22 AM
87392v
It bothers me when I see sentences missing Oxford commas. It immediately makes me think that the text is a level worse than it may actually be, because I subconsciously consider that an amateur mistake.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010, 9:36:36 PM
Auroch
I was always taught “You should use this, but it’s not actually required.”
Which seems fine to me. Leave it out if it improves the flow without breaking clarity, or don’t.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010, 1:19:16 PM
Welleran
I typically use them as it seems to add clarity in most situations. However, I work for the U.S. Government, and most of the bureaucrats don’t like them, so out they go most of the time!
Wednesday, August 04, 2010, 7:50:17 AM
Astronut
This is really one of those things that comes down to personal preference and situation. There is no hard and fast law.
My opinion as a Briton is that you should avoid it, especially for short lists, unless it is important to clarify what you’re saying. It does become important when you want to group items with ‘and’ in the middle of your list as in your example – it would be essential here. I would also have no issues with it being used in lengthy lists, where it helps indicate the end of the list.
Of course, for the American market, I’d guess Strunk & White takes precedence, but it has produced things that look distinctly odd to us Brits! If you’re wondering, quotation marks outside bracketing punctuation is the classic example: we only do that if the punctuation is part of the quotation…
The “Contested Will” example seems irrelevant to me: surely reading that first comma as a semi-colon or colon is misreading the phrase? If the writer meant to use a colon or semi-colon (both of which which have very specific meanings regarding their relevance to the preceding phrase) he or she would have used one!
YMMV!
Wednesday, August 04, 2010, 7:16:16 AM
Dave Cesarano
There’s also that old adage, “when in doubt, leave it out.”
Strunk and White say in Elements of Style (page 7 in my copy): “In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.” Therefore, for me at least, there is no doubt, so I most certainly use Oxford commas.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010, 5:12:09 PM
Sideshow
Unfortunately, the Oxford comma is not a cure-all for clarity. Sometimes it doesn’t help, and sometimes it makes things worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_comma
Tuesday, August 03, 2010, 4:46:01 PM
Justin Alexander
It’s notable to me that the examples of “ambiguous” Oxford commas in the Wikipedia link never become unambiguous by removing the comma, whereas multiple examples of Oxford commas eliminating ambiguity are cited.
Ergo, my advice stands: Always use ’em. It can never hurt, it will frequently help, and there’s no reason not to be consistent.
Friday, August 06, 2010, 10:47:43 AM
Muninn
I also find it amusing that the wp article lists one of the reasons against as “Inconsistent with conventional practice”.
So… nobody should use it because nobody uses it?
I was taught to use them.
Monday, August 09, 2010, 11:11:25 AM