The Oxford, the Serial, and the Series Comma

The Oxford, the Serial, and the Series Comma

Who would have known that such a tiny little mark could be the cause of so much confusion and debate? The comma, with all its rules, stipulations, and exceptions, is likely the most complicated – and highly debated – of all punctuation. The Oxford, or serial comma, is no exception. Placed before the conjunction joining the penultimate and last items in a list, the serial comma is discussed with fervor in linguistic circles around the world. Although a majority of style authorities agree that its use is standard, others diverge. The Associated Press Stylebook and Britain’s Times style, for example, accept its omission as standard practice. Strunk and White’s Elements of Style, however, makes no room for, nor mention of, the possibility of omission. Though I do prefer using the serial comma, I expect a reference book to be thorough, and to indicate all possibilities and treatments of a rule. Many other reference books such as The Chicago Manual of Style, Amy Einsohn’s Copyeditor’s Handbook, and Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation present both sides of the debate and specify standard usage. The Elements of Style would do well to include a reference to the serial comma’s omission as a standard practice among journalistic or British writing.

The main justification for using the serial comma is to prevent or avoid ambiguity. A Wikipedia article uses the example of a book dedication, “ ‘To my parents, Ayn Rand and God,’ ” as a case for when a missing comma might generate confusion. Here the author could theoretically mean that his or her parents are Ayn Rand and God, or he or she could be thanking three separate entities: the parents, Ayn Rand, and God. Employing the serial comma here eliminates the uncertainty, “To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.” This function of the serial comma is generally agreed upon by all style authorities, even journalistic-writing experts. It’s the simple, clear-cut lists and series that separate the believers from the non-believers. For example, “red, white and blue” and “red, white, and blue” are both unambiguous phrases – so which one is correct? According to Strunk and White, the first example is not a valid option. The Elements of Style simply states, “In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last” (Strunk and White 2). No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The AP Stylebook, however, instructs a writer to “Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in a simple series” (327). Though these two sources oppose each other in this situation, the Stylebook goes on to offer the option of using the serial comma in cases of multiple conjunctions and complex series of phrases. Strunk and White, on the other hand, do not offer the reader any case in which it might be acceptable to omit the serial comma.

The Chicago Manual of Style “strongly recommends this widely practiced usage, blessed by Fowler and other authorities” (245). But it also offers instances when it is not used, as in the case of the ampersand or in titles of works (246, 369). Karen Elizabeth Gordon’s New Well-Tempered Sentence recognizes both styles simply, “a comma comes before the conjunction – unless you’re a journalist” (46). The Copyeditor’s Handbook also alerts its readers to the varying opinions regarding the serial comma, stating that many resources demand or highly recommend its use, while others call for its use only to avoid ambiguity. Einsohn then goes on to suggest readers seek the advice of their editorial coordinators regarding house style and treatment of the serial comma. Truss informs her readers of both the standard usage in the U.S. and the standard omission in Britain in her book, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. If all of these other highly-regarded sources offer both sides of the debate, why can’t Strunk and White?

A comprehensive and effective reference tool recognizes and addresses all possibilities and treatments of a rule; it doesn’t present its preference as the only acceptable option. Strunk and White’s Elements of Style is doing a disservice to its readers by isolating the use of the serial comma as the only tolerable treatment of a list or series. Imagine if we were only given the option of vanilla ice cream, and were never informed of the mouth-watering butter pecan flavor or the fruity delights of strawberry ice cream. Wouldn’t we want to know that other flavors existed, even if we decided to stick with vanilla anyway? The serial-comma entry of The Elements of Style should be rewritten to at least acknowledge that a choice exists. An addition to the original entry could read something like this: It is the British standard and common among journalistic writing to omit the serial comma, except in cases of ambiguity. The serial comma is also omitted when an ampersand is used instead of the word “and” in a list. This observation does not encourage the comma’s omission, yet at the same time it acknowledges it as a standard for some. The addition also adheres to Strunk and White’s devotion to concise writing.

Works Cited

Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law. 35th ed. New York: The Associated Press, 2000.

Chicago Manual of Style, The.15th ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Einsohn, Amy. The Copyeditor’s Handbook. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000.

Gordon, Karen Elizabeth. The New Well-Tempered Sentence. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993.

“Serial comma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” Wikipedia. 9 Mar. 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 8 Mar. 2006.

Strunk Jr., William, and E.B. White. The Elements of Style. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Longman, 2000.

Truss, Lynne. Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. New York: Gotham Books, 2004.