Who gives a f*ck about an Oxford comma?
A comma used before the final conjunction in a list of three or more items.
If you’re a writer (or just a massive grammar nerd) you’ll have heard of the Oxford comma. In fact, you’ll probably have quite a strong opinion on its existence. If you don’t know what the Oxford comma is, buckle up.
The technical definition of the Oxford comma (also known as the serial/series or Harvard comma) is ‘a comma used before the final conjunction in a list of three or more items’. The conjunctions are usually or, and, or nor.
See what we did there?
There’s some confusion about the origins of the Oxford comma. Are we surprised, given that pretty much everything about it causes contention?
The ‘birth’, if you like, of the Oxford comma is attributed to three different points in history.
1905: Horace Hart, the controller of the Oxford University Press at the time, wrote a style guide for his employees, which is still available in print as New Hart’s Rules. It included the use of the Oxford comma, although he didn’t give it a specific name. In fact, it wasn’t even considered noteworthy as far as punctuation goes.
1978: Peter Sutcliffe uses the phrase ‘Oxford comma’ in The Oxford University Press: An Informal History. He, however, said he first saw the phrase in grammar books by F Howard Collins.
1912: F Howard Collins publishes Author & Printer: A Guide for Authors, Editors, Printers, Correctors of the Press, Compositors, and Typists. But he said the idea to write down the rules surrounding the Oxford comma came from letters exchanged with Herbert Spencer, a philosopher and contemporary of Charles Darwin.
The origin of the Oxford comma seems to be what’s essentially a century-long game of telephone.
But is it actually necessary? That’s a matter of opinion. Let’s find out. Claire and Chynna, both of whom have strong opinions about the Oxford comma, will be putting their copywriting skills to the test to debate the existence of the pesky punctuation mark throughout this blog.
The Oxford comma debate
CJ: Personally, I think Oxford commas are great. They add clarity, rhythm, and they’re just a little bit of fun.
To be honest, the main reason I like them is that they add rhythm. When you speak, you have to pause to breathe – in comes the comma. It breaks up the text and adds the cadence you hear when speaking aloud. And so does the Oxford comma.
When you say a list aloud, you naturally pause between each item on the list. So, if you think about it logically, these pauses should be represented in written form as well. For example:
“I need bread, milk, cheese, juice and biscuits from the shop.”
There’s a natural pause after the word ‘juice’, even though there’s no punctuation indicating it. This pause becomes the Oxford comma:
“I need bread, milk, cheese, juice, and biscuits from the shop.”
The Oxford comma is even more important when the items you’re listing are lengthy, or you have a very long list. I’d even go so far as to say it’s integral to sentence structure.
What’s important is consistency. Decide if and when you’ll use the Oxford comma and stick to it across your written comms.
CM: Ok, firstly – if you’ve just been to the shop, can I have one of those biscuits? Thanks. I need something tasty to quell the horrible feeling I get from seeing a pesky Oxford comma.
Why? Just why. Does. It. Exist? We’re meant to be making things easier for the reader, not harder. I bet the Sort Your Life Out team don’t use the Oxford comma. It’s excessive. It gets in the way. It’s essentially clutter.
Advocates of the Oxford comma say it ‘helps to avoid ambiguity’, but I disagree. I rarely, if ever, read a sentence where I’m so confused I need an Oxford comma to help me. It’s the grammatical equivalent of a flashback in a TV drama – I don’t need the flashback, I’m not confused, get on with it!
CJ: Okay, first of all, I see your ambiguity point and raise you this:
Now, you’re probably not going to be confused by the potentially ambiguous nature of this sentence (JFK and Stalin weren’t strippers…probably). Or in the classic example ‘I dedicate this book to my parents, God and Celine Dion’, where it’s clear that whoever else is included in the dedication is almost definitely not the author’s parents. But, grammatically speaking, the sentence doesn’t make sense without the Oxford comma.
Having said all that, sometimes the Oxford comma is necessary to avoid ambiguity in a sentence that doesn’t seem all that confusing at first glance. Take, for example, the O’Connor vs Oakhurst Dairy case. The entire case hinged on an Oxford comma or rather, the lack of one.
In March 2017 in the state of Maine, several truck drivers took their employer, Oakhurst Dairy, to court over overtime payments. Oakhurst argued that the drivers were not entitled to overtime because, according to the law in Maine, employees involved in “[t]he canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) agricultural produce; (2) meat and fish products; and (3) perishable foods” are not protected by the overtime law.
See the issue?
Due to the lack of Oxford comma, ‘packing for shipment or distribution’ can be read as the final activity in the list, rather than the two separate activities it was intended to be read as. This therefore allowed the drivers to successfully argue that, as they were distribution only, rather than ‘packing for shipment or distribution’, they were entitled to overtime pay.
And so, the necessity of the Oxford comma persists.
CM: Well, I’m happy for the truck drivers that they got their overtime, but I’m still not totally convinced. I’d always try to reorder a list to avoid both ambiguity and having to use the dreaded Oxford comma. So, in the case of a book dedication, I’d simply say: I dedicate this book to Taylor Swift, Robbie Williams and my parents. Simples.
You say Oxford commas add a bit of fun, but do you know what’s really fun? Sentences that are easy to read because they’re free of unnecessary punctuation.
To conclude…
Really, the thing you need to know about the Oxford comma is that it’s generally a matter of personal preference. But in some cases, it can improve clarity.
As the Guardian style guide says: “a comma before the final “and” in lists: straightforward ones (he ate ham, eggs and chips) isn’t necessary, but sometimes it can help the reader (he ate cereal, kippers, bacon, eggs, toast and marmalade, and tea).”
This is probably the best rule to follow if you’re not familiar with (or not a fan of) the Oxford comma. It’s good for longer lists but unnecessary in short ones.
However, what is important is consistency. Decide if and when you’ll use the Oxford comma and stick to it across your written comms.
So, have we swayed your opinion one way or the other?
Take our poll to see how people feel about Oxford commas
If you’re not sure if you’ve been consistent in your use of the Oxford comma, it might be time for a content audit or a tone of voice refresh.
We’re a content marketing agency who can help you define and develop your tone of voice and style.
We also offer content audits which can provide you with problems like grammar inconsistencies and SEO issues – easy fixes, but only if you know they’re there.
