Serial comma
In English language punctuation,[] a serial comma, or series comma, is a comma placed immediately after the penultimate term in a series of three or more terms. For example, a list of three countries might be punctuated either as "France, Italy and Spain" or "France, Italy, and Spain".
Opinions among writers and editors differ on whether to use the serial comma, and usage also differs somewhat between regional varieties of English. British English allows constructions with or without this comma, while in American English it is common and often even considered mandatory to use the comma. A majority of American style guides mandate use of the serial comma, including APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner's Modern American Usage, The MLA Style Manual, Strunk and White's Elements of Style and the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual. By contrast, the Associated Press Stylebook advises against it. In Canada, the stylebook published by The Canadian Press advises against it. Most British style guides do not mandate its use. The Economist Style Guide notes that most British writers only use it where necessary to avoid ambiguity. However, a few British style guides mandate it, most notably The Oxford Style Manual.
The Oxford Companion to the English Language notes that, "Usage varies as to the inclusion of a comma before and in the last item... This practice is controversial and is known as the serial comma or Oxford comma, because it is part of the house style of Oxford University Press." There are cases in which the use of the serial comma can avoid ambiguity and also instances in which its use can introduce ambiguity.
Arguments for and against
Common arguments for consistent use of the serial comma:- Use of the comma is consistent with the conventional practice of the region.
- It matches the spoken cadence of sentences better.
- It can resolve ambiguity.
- Its use is consistent with other means of separating items in a list.
- Its omission may suggest a stronger connection between the last two items in a series than actually exists.
- Use of the comma is inconsistent with the conventional practice of the region.
- It can introduce ambiguity.
- Where space is at a premium, the comma adds unnecessary bulk to the text.
Ambiguity
Resolving ambiguity
Omitting the serial comma may create ambiguity. Writers who normally avoid the serial comma often use one when it avoids ambiguity. Consider this book dedication:There is ambiguity about the writer's parentage, because "Ayn Rand and God" can be read as in apposition to my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer claims Ayn Rand and God are the parents. A comma before and removes the ambiguity:
But lists can also be written in other ways that eliminate the ambiguity without introducing the serial comma, such as by changing the word order or by using other punctuation, or none, to introduce or delimit them :
An example collected by Nielsen Hayden was found in a newspaper account of a documentary about Merle Haggard:
A serial comma following "Kris Kristofferson" would help prevent this being understood as Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall being the ex-wives in question.
Another example is:
It is unclear whether the eggs are being grouped with the bacon or the toast. Adding a serial comma removes this ambiguity:
Creating ambiguity
In some circumstances using the serial comma can create ambiguity. If the book dedication above is changed tothe serial comma after Ayn Rand creates ambiguity about the writer's mother because it uses punctuation identical to that used for an appositive phrase, leaving it unclear whether this is a list of three entities or of only two entities.
Unresolved ambiguity
The Times once published an unintentionally humorous description of a Peter Ustinov documentary, noting that "highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector". This would still be ambiguous if a serial comma were added, as Mandela could still be mistaken for a demigod, although he would be precluded from being a dildo collector.Or consider
This is ambiguous because it is unclear whether "a maid" is an appositive describing Betty, or the second in a list of three people. On the other hand, removing the final comma:
leaves the possibility that Betty is both a maid and a cook. So in this case neither the serial-comma style nor the no-serial-comma style resolves the ambiguity. A writer who intends a list of three distinct people may create an ambiguous sentence, regardless of whether the serial comma is adopted. Furthermore, if the reader is unaware of which convention is being used, both versions are always ambiguous.
These forms would remove the ambiguity:
- One person
- * They went to Oregon with Betty, who was a maid and a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with Betty, both a maid and a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with Betty.
- * They went to Oregon with Betty, their maid and cook.
- Two people
- * They went to Oregon with Betty and a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with Bettya maidand a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and with a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with the maid Betty and a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with a cook and Betty, a maid.
- Three people
- * They went to Oregon with Betty, as well as a maid and a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with Betty and a maid and a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with Betty, one maid and a cook.
- * They went to Oregon with a maid, a cook, and Betty.
- * They went to Oregon with a maid, a cook and Betty.
- * They went with Betty to Oregon with a maid and a cook.
In general
- The list x, y and z is unambiguous if y and z cannot be read as in apposition to x.
- Equally, x, y, and z is unambiguous if y cannot be read as in apposition to x.
- If neither y nor y and z can be read as in apposition to x, then both forms of the list are unambiguous; but if both y and y and z can be read as in apposition to x, then both forms of the list are ambiguous.
- x and y and z is unambiguous if x and y and y and z cannot both be grouped.
Recommendations by style guides
writes: "There are people who embrace the Oxford comma, and people who don't, and I'll just say this: never get between these people when drink has been taken."Omitting a serial comma is often characterized as a journalistic style of writing, as contrasted with a more academic or formal style. Journalists typically do not use the serial comma, possibly for economy of space. In Australia, Canada and South Africa, the serial comma tends not to be used in non-academic publications unless its absence produces ambiguity.
It is important that usage within a document be consistent; inconsistent usage can seem unprofessional.
Mainly American style guides supporting mandatory or typical use
;The United States Government Printing Office's Style Manual;Wilson Follett's Modern American Usage: A Guide, pp. 397–401:
;The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, paragraph 6.18
;The Elements of Style, Rule 2
;The American Medical Association Manual of Style, 9th edition Chapter 6.2.1
;The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition Chapter 4.03
;The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers, Section 5.3.3.1
;Garner's Modern English Usage, 4th edition, "Punctuation," § D, "Comma", p. 748
;MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, paragraph 3.4.2.b
;AAMT Book of Style for Medical Transcription
;AIP Style Manual, American Institute of Physics, fourth edition, 1990
;Plain English Handbook, Revised Edition, § 483, p. 78
Mainly British style guides supporting mandatory or typical use
;The Oxford Style Manual, 2002;MHRA Style Guide, 3rd edition
Mainly British style guides opposing typical use
;The Times style manual;The Economist Style Guide
;University of Oxford Public Affairs Directorate Writing and Style Guide
Mainly British style guides that consider it generally unnecessary but discretionary
;The Guardian Style Guide;The Cambridge Guide to English Usage
;Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 4th edition, 2015
;''New Hart's Rules, 2014
Mainly American style guides opposing typical use
;The New York Times stylebook;The AP Stylebook
Australian style guides opposing typical use
;The Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and PrintersCanadian style guides opposing typical use
;Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau's The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing'''Individual disputes
Maine labor dispute
In the U.S. state of Maine, the lack of a serial comma became the deciding factor in a $13 million lawsuit filed in 2014 that was eventually settled for $5 million in 2017. As the U.S. appeals judge David J. Barron wrote, "For want of a comma, we have this case."In the case known as O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, a federal court of appeals was required to interpret a statute under which the "canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution" of certain goods were activities exempted from the general requirement of overtime pay; the question was whether this list included the distribution of the goods, or only the packing of the goods for distribution. The lack of a comma suggested one meaning, while the omission of the conjunction or before "packing" and the fact that the Maine Legislative Drafting Manual advised against use of the serial comma suggested another. It said "Although authorities on punctuation may differ, when drafting Maine law or rules, don’t use a comma between the penultimate and the last item of a series." In addition to the absence of a comma, the fact that the word chosen was "distribution" rather than "distributing" was also a consideration, as was the question of whether it would be reasonable to consider the list to be an asyndetic list. Truck drivers demanded overtime pay, and the defense conceded that the expression was ambiguous, but said it should be interpreted as exempting distribution activity from overtime pay. The district court agreed with the defense and held that "distribution" was an exempt activity. On appeal, however, the First Circuit decided that the sentence was ambiguous and "because, under Maine law, ambiguities in the state's wage and hour laws must be construed liberally in order to accomplish their remedial purpose", adopted the drivers' narrower reading of the exemption and ruled that those who distributed the goods were entitled to overtime pay. Oakhurst Dairy settled the case by paying $5 million to the drivers, and the phrase in the law in question was later changed to use serial semicolons and "distributing" resulting in "canning; processing; preserving; freezing; drying; marketing; storing; packing for shipment; or distributing".
The opinion in the case said that 43 of the 50 U.S. states had mandated the use of a serial comma and that both chambers of the federal congress had warned against omitting it, in the words of the U.S. House Legislative Counsel's Manual on Drafting Style, "to prevent any misreading that the last item is part of the preceding one"; only seven states "either do not require or expressly prohibited the use of the serial comma".