Hubbry Logo
Serial commaSerial commaMain
Open search
Serial comma
Community hub
Serial comma
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Serial comma
Serial comma
Serial comma
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The serial comma (also referred to as the series comma, Oxford comma,[1] or Harvard comma[2]) is a comma placed after the second-to-last term in a list (just before the conjunction) when writing out three or more terms.[3][4][5] For example, a list of three countries might be punctuated with the serial comma as "France, Italy, and Spain" or without it as "France, Italy and Spain". The serial comma can help avoid ambiguity in some situations, but can also create it in others.[6] There is no universally accepted standard for its use.[7]

The serial comma is popular in formal writing (such as in academic, literary, and legal contexts)[8][9] but is usually omitted in journalism as a way to save space.[9][10][11] Its popularity in informal and semi-formal writing depends on the variety of English; it is usually excluded in British English, while in American English it is common and often considered mandatory outside journalism.[12][13][14] Academic and legal style guides such as the APA style,[15] The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner's Modern American Usage,[16] Strunk and White's The Elements of Style,[17] and the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual[18] either recommend or require the serial comma, as does The Oxford Style Manual (hence the alternative name "Oxford comma").[13] Newspaper stylebooks such as the Associated Press Stylebook, The New York Times Style Book,[19] and The Canadian Press stylebook typically recommend against it. Most British style guides do not require it, with The Economist Style Guide noting most British writers use it only to avoid ambiguity.[12]

While many sources provide default recommendations on whether to use the serial comma as a matter of course, most also include exceptions for situations where it is necessary to avoid ambiguity (see Serial comma § Recommendations by style guides).[20]

History

[edit]

The comma itself is widely attributed to Aldus Manutius, a 15th-century Italian printer who used a mark—now recognized as a comma—to separate words.[21] Etymologically, the word comma, which became widely used to describe Manutius's mark, comes from the Greek κόμμα (lit. 'to cut off').[22] The serial comma has been used for centuries in a variety of languages, though not necessarily in a uniform or regulated manner.[23]

The serial comma is most often attributed to Horace Hart, the printer and controller of the Oxford University Press from 1893 to 1915. Hart wrote the eponymous Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers in 1905 as a style guide for the employees working at the press.[24] The guide called for the use of the serial comma,[25] but the punctuation mark had no distinct name until 1978, when Peter Sutcliffe referred to the serial comma as such in his historical account of the Oxford University Press.[26]

Sutcliffe, however, attributed the serial comma not to Horace Hart but to F. Howard Collins,[26] who mentioned it in his 1905 book, Author & Printer: A Guide for Authors, Editors, Printers, Correctors of the Press, Compositors, and Typists.[27]

Arguments for and against

[edit]

Common arguments for the consistent use of the serial comma are:

  • The comma's use is consistent with the conventional practice of the region.[28]
  • It can resolve ambiguity (see examples below).[29][30][31]
  • Its use is consistent with other means of separating items in a list (for example, when semicolons are used to separate items, one is always included before the last item).[32]
  • Its use is consistent with the spoken rhythm of the sentence, and is especially important for copy meant to be read aloud by a voice actor.

Common arguments against the consistent use of the serial comma are:

  • The comma's omission is consistent with the conventional practice of the region.[33]
  • It can introduce ambiguity.
  • When space is at a premium, it adds redundancy and unnecessary bulk to the text.

Many sources are against both systematic use and systematic avoidance of the serial comma, making recommendations in a more nuanced way as reflected in recommendations by style guides.

Ambiguity

[edit]
Further information: Syntactic ambiguity

Omitting the serial comma may create ambiguity; writers who normally avoid the comma often use one to avoid this. Consider the apocryphal book dedication below:[34]

To my parents, Mother Teresa and the pope.

There is ambiguity about the writer's parentage as "Mother Teresa and the pope" can be read as an appositive phrase renaming of[35] my parents, leading the reader to believe that the writer claims that Mother Teresa and the pope are their parents. A comma before the and removes the ambiguity:

To my parents, Mother Teresa, and the pope.

Nevertheless, 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 or no punctuation to introduce or delimit them (though the emphasis may thereby be changed):

To the pope, Mother Teresa and my parents.

An example collected by Nielsen Hayden was found in a newspaper account of a documentary about Merle Haggard:

Among those interviewed were his two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall.[36]

A serial comma following "Kris Kristofferson" would help prevent this being understood as Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall being the ex-wives in question.

In some circumstances, using the serial comma can create ambiguity. If the book dedication above is changed to

To my mother, Mother Teresa, and the pope.

the comma after Mother Teresa creates ambiguity because it can be read as an appositive phrase implying that the writer's mother is Mother Teresa. This leaves it unclear whether this is a list of three entities (1, my mother; 2, Mother Teresa; and 3, the pope) or of only two entities (1, my mother, who is Mother Teresa; and 2, the pope).[6]

Also:

They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.

This is ambiguous because it is unclear whether "a maid" is an appositive renaming of Betty or the second in a list of three people. On the other hand, removing the final comma:

They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid and a cook.

leaves the possibility that Betty is both a maid and a cook (with "a maid and a cook" read as an appositive phrase).[37] 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 (Betty, maid, cook) 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 styles can be ambiguous in cases such as this.

These forms (among others) 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 (a maid and cook).
    • They went to Oregon with Betty, their maid and cook.
  • Two people
    • They went to Oregon with Betty (a maid) and a cook.
    • They went to Oregon with Betty—a maid—and 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

[edit]
  • The list x, y and z is unambiguous if y and z cannot be read as a renaming of x.
  • Equally, x, y, and z is unambiguous if y cannot be read as a renaming of x.
  • If neither y nor y and z can be read as a renaming of x, then both forms of the list are unambiguous, but if both y and y and z can be read as a renaming of 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.

Ambiguities can often be resolved by the selective use of semicolons instead of commas when more separation is required.[38] General practice across style guides involves using semicolons when individual items have their own punctuation or coordinating conjunctions, but typically a "serial semicolon" is required.[39]

Recommendations by English style guides

[edit]

Lynne Truss 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."[14]

Omitting a serial comma is often characterized as a journalistic style of writing, as contrasted with a more academic or formal style.[8][9][11] Journalists typically do not use the comma, possibly for economy of space.[10] In Australia and Canada, the comma is typically avoided in non-academic publications unless its absence produces ambiguity.

It is important that the serial comma's usage within a document be consistent;[40] inconsistent usage can seem unprofessional.[11]

Mainly American style guides supporting mandatory or typical use

[edit]
The United States Government Printing Office's Style Manual
"After each member within a series of three or more words, phrases, letters, or figures used with and, or, or nor." It notes that an age ("70 years 11 months 6 days") is not a series and should not take commas.[41]
Wilson Follett's Modern American Usage: A Guide (Random House, 1981), pp. 397–401
"What, then, are the arguments for omitting the last comma? Only one is cogent – the saving of space. In the narrow width of a newspaper column this saving counts for more than elsewhere, which is why the omission is so nearly universal in journalism. But here or anywhere one must question whether the advantage outweighs the confusion caused by the omission. … The recommendation here is that [writers] use the comma between all members of a series, including the last two, on the common-sense ground that to do so will preclude ambiguities and annoyances at a negligible cost."[42]
The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition (University of Chicago Press, 2010), paragraph 6.18
"When a conjunction joins the last two elements in a series of three or more, a comma … should appear before the conjunction. Chicago strongly recommends this widely practiced usage." In answer to a reader's query, The Chicago Manual of Style Online notes that their style guide has been recommending use of the serial comma ever since the first edition in 1906, but also qualifies this, saying "the serial comma is optional; some mainstream style guides (such as the Associated Press) don't use it. … there are times when using the comma (or omitting it) results in ambiguity, which is why it's best to stay flexible."[43]
The Elements of Style (Strunk and White, 4th edition 1999), Rule 2[17]
"In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last." This has been recommended in The Elements of Style since the first edition by Strunk in 1918.[43]
The American Medical Association Manual of Style, 9th edition (1998) Chapter 6.2.1
"Use a comma before the conjunction that precedes the last term in a series."
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edition (2010) Chapter 4.03
"Use a comma between elements (including before and and or) in a series of three or more items."
The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (Council of Science Editors, 7th edition, 2006), Section 5.3.3.1
"To separate the elements (words, phrases, clauses) of a simple series of more than 2 elements, including a comma before the closing 'and' or 'or' (the so-called serial comma). Routine use of the serial comma helps to prevent ambiguity."
Garner's Modern English Usage, 4th edition (Oxford University Press, 2016), "Punctuation," § D, "Comma", p. 748
"Whether to include the serial comma has sparked many arguments. But it's easily answered in favor of inclusion because omitting the final comma may cause ambiguities, whereas including it never will – e.g.: 'A and B, C and D, E and F[,] and G and H'."
MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing (Modern Language Association 2008), paragraph 3.4.2.b
"Use commas to separate words, phrases, and clauses in a series."
AAMT Book of Style for Medical Transcription
"Medical transcriptionists use the serial comma when two medications or diagnoses must be seen as separate; i.e., for 'The patient was on Aspirin, Coversyl, and Dilaudid', the comma is used before 'and' to avoid the reader erroneously thinking that Coversyl and Dilaudid must be taken together."[44]
AIP Style Manual, American Institute of Physics, fourth edition, 1990
"A comma goes before 'and' or 'or' in a series of three or more: Sn, K, Na, and Li lines are invisible."
Plain English Handbook, Revised Edition (McCormick-Mathers Publishing Co., 1959), § 483, p. 78
"Use commas to separate the items in a series of words, phrases, or short clauses:
The farmer sold corn, hay, oats, potatoes, and wheat."

Mainly American style guides opposing typical use

[edit]
The New York Times stylebook[45]
"In general, do not use a comma before and or or in a series: The snow stalled cars, buses and trains.
The AP Stylebook[46]
"Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in a simple series. […] Put a comma before the concluding conjunction in a series, however, if an integral element of the series requires a conjunction: I had orange juice, toast, and ham and eggs for breakfast. Use a comma also before the concluding conjunction in a complex series of phrases: The main points to consider are whether the athletes are skillful enough to compete, whether they have the stamina to endure the training, and whether they have the proper mental attitude. In the United States, the choice is between journalistic style (no serial comma) and "literary" style (with serial comma); consistent use of the serial comma is usually recommended for college writing."[8]

Mainly British style guides supporting mandatory or typical use

[edit]
MHRA Style Guide (Modern Humanities Research Association), 4th edition (2024)[47]
"In an enumeration of three or more items, the practice in MHRA journals is to insert commas after all but the last item, to give equal weight to each enumerated element … The conjunctions and and or without a preceding comma are understood as linking the parts of a single enumerated element"
However, a note on page 9[47] states: "The comma after the penultimate item may be omitted in books published by the MHRA, as long as the sense is clear."

Mainly British style guides opposing typical use

[edit]
The Times style manual[48]
"Avoid the so-called Oxford comma; say 'he ate bread, butter and jam' rather than 'he ate bread, butter, and jam'."
The Economist Style Guide[49]
"Do not put a comma before and at the end of a sequence of items unless one of the items includes another and. Thus 'The doctor suggested an aspirin, half a grapefruit and a cup of broth. But he ordered scrambled eggs, whisky and soda, and a selection from the trolley.'"
"Sometimes it is essential: compare 'I dedicate this book to my parents, Martin Amis, and JK Rowling' with 'I dedicate this book to my parents, Martin Amis and JK Rowling'."

Mainly British style guides that consider it generally unnecessary but discretionary

[edit]
The Guardian Style Guide[50]
"A comma before the final 'and' in lists: straightforward ones (he ate ham, eggs and chips) do not need one, but sometimes it can help the reader (he ate cereal, kippers, bacon, eggs, toast and marmalade, and tea)."
The Cambridge Guide to English Usage[51]
"In British practice there's an Oxford/Cambridge divide … In Canada and Australia the serial comma is recommended only to prevent ambiguity or misreading."
Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 4th edition, 2015[40]
"The so-called 'Oxford comma' is an optional comma that follows the penultimate item in a list of three or more items and precedes the word 'and' … The general rule is that it should be used consistently or not at all … However, the Oxford comma can help to avoid ambiguity, ... and it is sometimes helpful to the reader to use an isolated serial comma for clarification, even when the convention has not been adopted in the rest of the text."
New Hart's Rules, 2014[52]
"The general rule is that one style or the other should be used consistently. However, the last comma can serve to resolve ambiguity, particularly when any of the items are compound terms joined by a conjunction, and it is sometimes helpful to the reader to use an isolated serial comma for clarification even when the convention has not been adopted in the rest of the text."

Australian style guides opposing typical use

[edit]
The Australian Government Publishing Service's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers[53]
"A comma is used before and, or, or etc. in a list when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase. … Generally, however, a comma is not used before and, or or etc. in a list."

Canadian style guides opposing typical use

[edit]
Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau's The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing[54]
"Items in a series may be separated by commas:
Complacency, urbanity, sentimentality, whimsicality
They may also be linked by coordinating conjunctions such as and or or:
economists, sociologists or political scientists
the good, the bad and the ugly
Opinions differ on whether and when a comma should be inserted before the final and or or in a sequence. In keeping with the general trend toward less punctuation, the final comma is best omitted where clarity permits, unless there is a need to emphasize the last element in a series."

Other languages

[edit]

Japanese

[edit]

The serial comma does not exist in standard Japanese writing. Although it is technically possible to imitate it by writing a list such as 母、父、と私 ("mum, dad, and me"), this is not considered natural.[55] In Japanese, list items are typically connected either with the particle と ("and") throughout or separated simply by commas, as in 母と父と私 or 母、父、私.[56]

Spanish

[edit]

The serial comma is proscribed in Spanish. The Royal Spanish Academy explains that, in general, use of the comma is incompatible with the conjunctions y (and), e (and), ni (nor), o (or), and u (or) when they separate elements in the same series or syntactically equivalent members within a statement.[57][58]

Vietnamese

[edit]

In Vietnamese, the serial comma is commonplace because the conjunction và (and) is routinely omitted from lists.[59] As in English, comma omission can cause drastic changes in sentence meaning.[60]

Individual disputes

[edit]

Maine labor dispute

[edit]

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. The U.S. appeals judge David J. Barron wrote, "For want of a comma, we have this case."[61][62][63]

In O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy,[64] 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."[65] In addition to the absence of a comma, the fact that the word chosen was "distribution" rather than "distributing" was also a consideration,[66] as was the question of whether it would be reasonable to consider the list to be an asyndetic list. Truck drivers demanded overtime pay; the defense conceded that the expression was ambiguous but said it should be interpreted as exempting distribution activity from overtime pay.[66] 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,[67] 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".[68]

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".[30][31]

British 50p Brexit coin

[edit]

In 2020, a commemorative 50p coin was brought into circulation in the United Kingdom to mark "Brexit day", January 31, 2020, minted with the phrase "Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations". English novelist Philip Pullman and others criticized the omission of the serial comma, while others said it was an Americanism and not required in this instance.[69][70]

See also

[edit]
  • Roger Casement, "hanged on a comma" due to contested non-punctuation in a law
  • "Oxford Comma", a 2008 song by Vampire Weekend which begins "Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?"
  • Syndeton, the conjunctive phrasing that may or may not contain a serial comma

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Serial comma

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The serial comma, also known as the Oxford comma or Harvard comma, is a punctuation mark inserted immediately before the coordinating conjunction—typically "and" or "or"—that precedes the final item in a series of three or more elements, as in the list "red, white, and blue." Its inclusion aims to delineate items distinctly, reducing potential syntactic ambiguity in parsing compound structures. While optional in many contexts, the serial comma is mandated by style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, and the MLA Handbook to promote precision, particularly when list elements contain internal commas or appositives that could otherwise mislead readers. In contrast, journalistic standards like the Associated Press Stylebook generally omit it for conciseness in straightforward enumerations, deeming the conjunction sufficient as a separator. This divergence fuels ongoing debate, with proponents arguing from first principles of logical clarity that the comma prevents conflation—such as interpreting "I invited my parents, Ayn Rand and God" without it as implying the parents are Rand and God—while detractors view it as redundant stylistic overhead in unambiguous cases. The serial comma's practical stakes extend to legal interpretation, exemplified by the 2017 O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy case in Maine, where its absence in a state overtime exemption statute—"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of: (1) Agricultural produce..."—created ambiguity over whether "packing for shipment or distribution" modified all preceding activities or only perishable goods, ultimately yielding a $5 million settlement for drivers after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled the phrasing unclear. Despite such high-profile ramifications underscoring its role in causal chains of miscommunication, adoption remains inconsistent, reflecting tensions between exhaustive disambiguation and economical expression in English prose.

Definition and Core Usage

Definition and Terminology

The serial comma, also known as the Oxford comma, Harvard comma, or series comma, is the comma placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction—typically "and" or "or"—preceding the final item in a list of three or more parallel elements. This punctuation mark serves to separate the penultimate item from the conjunction and the last item, as in the example: "red, white, and blue." Its use distinguishes it from lists of two items, where no comma precedes the conjunction, and from non-serial comma styles that omit it before the final conjunction in longer lists. The terminology reflects associations with specific style guides: "Oxford comma" derives from its requirement in the style, while "Harvard comma" stems from similar mandates in guidelines. "Serial comma" is a more general descriptor highlighting its application in sequences or series, independent of institutional branding, and is preferred in contexts like for its neutrality. "Series comma" appears as an occasional , emphasizing the structure. These terms are not interchangeable in all style manuals, where preferences for inclusion or omission vary, but they uniformly denote the same syntactic position.

Basic Examples and Variations

The serial comma, placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (typically "and" or "or") in a list of three or more items, appears in constructions such as "red, white, and blue flags" rather than "red, white and blue flags". This punctuation enhances parallelism by treating each list element uniformly, as recommended by style guides like the Chicago Manual of Style, which endorses its use for consistency in series. In basic applications, it applies to simple enumerations, such as ingredients in a recipe: "flour, sugar, eggs, and butter". A key variation arises in ambiguity resolution, where omitting the serial comma can alter intended meaning. For instance, the dedication "to my parents, and " without the comma implies the parents are Ayn Rand and God, whereas "to my parents, , and " clarifies three distinct dedicatees. Similarly, "the event featured speeches by the mayor, union leaders and celebrities" might suggest the mayor heads the union leaders and celebrities, but inserting the comma—"speeches by the mayor, union leaders, and celebrities"—separates them unequivocally. Such cases underscore its role in preventing syntactic misparsing, particularly in nonrestrictive appositives. Style guides exhibit variations in routine application. The (AP) Stylebook advises against the serial comma in simple series unless omission risks confusion, as in "orange juice, toast and " where the final pair requires separation for clarity. In contrast, the (APA) mandates it for all series of three or more elements to promote readability. The Chicago Manual of Style favors it broadly but permits flexibility in straightforward lists, prioritizing judgment over rigid rules. These differences reflect contextual priorities: journalistic economy in AP versus academic precision in APA and Chicago. Further variations occur with compound elements or longer lists. In series with internal commas, such as "books by , including Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility; , including Great Expectations and David Copperfield; and , including Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer", the serial comma (often paired with semicolons for separation) maintains structure. It also extends to lists using "or," as in "choose apples, pears, or bananas," aligning with parallelism principles. Rarely, inserting it can introduce unintended ambiguity, such as in "dedicated to my mother, , and God" if context implies , though this is less common than omission-induced issues.

Historical Development

Early Usage in English Printing and Literature

The serial comma appeared in English printed texts during the , coinciding with the expansion of presses, where it occurred in approximately 61% of relevant list constructions, markedly higher than the 8.63% rate in contemporaneous handwritten manuscripts. This disparity highlights printers' role in standardizing for enhanced readability and rhetorical emphasis, treating the as a pause to delineate series elements before the conjunction, independent of spoken intonation. Usage rose substantially in the , exceeding 83% across analyzed corpora, with printed works driving consistency through typographic conventions that favored explicit separation in lists of three or more items—reaching 87.34% for tripartite series. A prominent early example is found in the 1611 King James Bible, as in the greeting "Grace, Mercie, and Peace," reflecting biblical translators' and printers' alignment with classical rhetorical traditions of pausing for clarity in enumerations. Grammarian Charles Butler reinforced this practice in his 1633 , stating that "many single words, of de sam’ sort, coming togeder, ar distinguished by commas," advocating the device to mark grammatical boundaries in coordinated phrases. Into the , serial employment stabilized around 80%, bolstered by prescriptive influences like Bishop Robert Lowth's 1762 Short Introduction to , which prescribed commas in series beyond two elements to prevent syntactic fusion and aid : "When more than two words... are connected, a should be placed after each, except the last." Literary applications in this era, such as in prose by authors like , often mirrored these printing norms, embedding the in complex inventories to underscore parallelism without reliance on conjunction alone for closure. Overall, early adoption stemmed from causal pressures of print dissemination—prioritizing visual uniformity and disambiguation over variability—laying groundwork for its persistence amid evolving stylistic debates.

Emergence of the Term and Oxford Association

The term "serial comma" emerged in early 20th-century printing and style guides, with the first documented printed reference appearing in F. H. Collins's Authors' and Printers' Dictionary (1905), where Collins advocated for its consistent use to denote the comma preceding the final conjunction in a series of three or more items. This terminology reflected the comma's role in serializing list elements, distinguishing it from earlier ad hoc punctuation practices in English texts dating back centuries, such as in the 1611 King James Bible. Collins's work, aimed at standardizing compositor practices, helped formalize the descriptor amid growing debates over list clarity in professional printing. The association arose concurrently through Horace Hart, controller of the (OUP) from 1893 to 1915, whose Rules for Compositors and Readers (first published 1904, with the 19th edition in July 1905) explicitly required the serial comma in OUP publications to ensure uniformity and reduce ambiguity. Hart's guide, an in-house manual expanded for broader use, mandated this punctuation for all series, influencing OUP's style for over a century and earning the comma the "Oxford comma" in later references, despite the practice predating Hart in sporadic English usage. This codification contrasted with varying conventions elsewhere, positioning OUP as a proponent of mandatory inclusion, though Hart drew partial influence from earlier works like Henry Beadnell's 1880 suggestions. By 1978, the "Oxford comma" label gained retrospective popularity via Peter Sutcliffe's informal history of , solidifying the tie.

Linguistic and Logical Rationale

Principles of List Parallelism

Parallelism in lists requires that all elements share the same grammatical form, such as nouns, gerunds, infinitives, or clauses, to convey equal importance and structural consistency. This principle ensures that ideas joined by coordinating conjunctions like "and" or "or" maintain uniformity, avoiding mismatched forms that disrupt readability, as in correcting "I enjoy , , and to fish" to ", , and ." In bulleted or inline lists, each item must begin with equivalent parts of speech or phrases, such as all imperative verbs: "Update the report, engage stakeholders, and complete the review." The serial comma supports list parallelism by uniformly punctuating separations between items, preserving the distinct boundaries of each parallel element before the final conjunction. Without it, the absence of a comma before "and" can cause the penultimate and final items to fuse, especially in lists with compound phrases, undermining the intended equality of structure. For instance, "I ate hot dogs, and jelly and " risks parsing " and jelly and " as a single awkward item, whereas "hot dogs, and jelly, and " clearly delineates three parallel noun phrases. This punctuation reinforces rhythmic balance and prevents non-parallel readings, as seen in Abraham Lincoln's : "...a new nation, conceived in , and dedicated..." where the serial comma aligns the participial phrases in parallel form. In complex lists, the serial comma extends parallelism to compound elements within items, ensuring consistent separation without implying subordination. Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage (2009) endorses this for avoiding while maintaining grammatical equity, a view echoed in style guides prioritizing structural clarity over minimalism. Deviations, such as omitting the comma in "dogs, cats and birds," may still parse simply but falter in uniformity when items vary in length or include modifiers, potentially eroding the parallel intent. Thus, the serial comma aligns with the of list items, promoting syntactic precision grounded in consistent form.

First-Principles Analysis of Syntactic Clarity

From foundational syntactic principles, the serial comma enforces parallelism in construction by treating all elements uniformly as coordinate items separated by identical delimiters, thereby minimizing errors inherent in linear text processing. English lists rely on commas to signal boundaries between conjoined phrases, with the conjunction ("and" or "or") serving as the sole non-punctuated link for the final pair; however, omitting the comma before this conjunction introduces an inconsistent boundary, which can causally lead to misgrouping where the penultimate and ultimate items are interpreted as an appositive modifying the prior element rather than as independent members. This stems from the brain's incremental mechanism, which prioritizes local syntactic cues over global semantics, making explicit separation essential to avoid unintended associations without relying on contextual inference. Logically, a series represents a distributive conjunction over discrete entities, and the serial comma preserves this by preventing the conjunction from ambiguously binding only the last two items in a way that alters scope; for example, in "dedicated to my parents, and ," the lack of a comma allows a reading where " and " appositively renames "parents," equating them causally to a false equivalence, whereas "dedicated to my parents, , and " maintains distinct referents through uniform isolation. Such constructions highlight how causally determines interpretative branching: without the serial comma, syntactic trees permit dual resolutions (parallel list vs. embedded appositive), increasing cognitive disambiguation load and error risk, particularly in lists where items could semantically align as units. This principle extends to complex lists, where nested structures or modifying phrases amplify boundary ambiguity; uniform comma usage aligns with causal realism in language design, as it reduces reliance on reader presuppositions and ensures the intended propositional structure—flat coordination—prevails over alternatives, thereby optimizing clarity as a function of predictable rule application rather than ad hoc exceptions. Empirical parsing models, such as those in dependency grammar, underscore that consistent delimiters lower attachment ambiguities, confirming the serial comma's role in rendering syntax transparent and verifiable independent of stylistic variance.

Case for Mandatory Use

Ambiguity Prevention with Specific Instances

The serial comma mitigates in enumerated lists by delineating the final item as distinct from an appositive or restrictive modifier attached to the penultimate element, ensuring parallel structure is unambiguous. Without it, a reader may interpret the conjunction "and" as linking the last two items in a way that alters the intended meaning, particularly when the final elements resemble descriptors or proper nouns. This risk arises from the human tendency to parse phrases heuristically, where proximity and lack of can fuse items erroneously. A classic illustrative example is the book dedication "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God," which, absent the serial comma, implies that Ayn Rand and God are the parents rather than separate dedicatees. Inserting the comma—"To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God"—clarifies the list as comprising three independent entities: the parents, the philosopher , and . Similar constructions, such as "I invited the ambassador, Stalin and Trotsky," without the comma suggest the ambassador is both Stalin and Trotsky, whereas the serial comma separates them unequivocally. These instances demonstrate how omission can invert referential intent in nominal lists. In a documented legal context, the absence of a serial comma in Maine's exemption precipitated costly . The stated that overtime pay was not required for "canning, packing for shipment or distribution of... the canned or preserved food and farm products... of employees engaged in... cannery workers, workers, delivery drivers and farmworkers." In O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy (2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that this phrasing created grammatical uncertainty as to whether "delivery drivers and farmworkers" constituted a distinct paired exemption or if delivery drivers were separately exempt. The court ruled the drivers ineligible for the exemption, entitling them to overtime; Oakhurst Dairy subsequently settled for $5 million in 2018. This outcome underscores the serial comma's role in forestalling interpretive disputes in statutory language, where precision directly impacts financial liability.

Consistency and Precision in Complex Lists

In complex lists—those featuring nested phrases, internal commas, or elements—the serial comma promotes consistency by enforcing uniform across all item separations, aligning with principles of syntactic parallelism that treat each equivalently regardless of position. This approach avoids asymmetrical structures where the final pair relies solely on a conjunction, potentially disrupting the reader's expectation of parallel grammatical treatment. For instance, in a list such as "key stakeholders include , staff, and unions; clients, suppliers, and regulators; and government agencies," the serial comma ensures each category receives identical separation, mirroring the commas in prior segments and reducing in multifaceted series. Precision is further enhanced in such contexts, as the serial comma delineates boundaries explicitly, mitigating risks of misgrouping when items contain their own punctuation. Consider "invited were executives from New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA and Chicago, IL; and international partners from London, UK and , "—omitting the serial comma could imply "Los Angeles, CA and Chicago, IL" as a single fused entity, whereas inclusion clarifies discrete locations. Linguistic analyses emphasize this for intricate enumerations, where ambiguity arises from proximity to conjunctions amid subclausal complexity. In technical and business writing, mandatory serial comma use in complex lists upholds rigorous standards, as inconsistency invites interpretive variance that could affect compliance or execution; style recommendations prioritize it to eliminate such hazards, ensuring reproducible clarity across documents.

Case Against Routine Use

Assertions of Superfluity in Simple Contexts

Proponents of omitting the serial comma in simple lists assert that it serves no essential syntactic function, as the coordinating conjunction "and" or "or" inherently demarcates the final pair of items, rendering the preceding comma redundant. For instance, in the phrase "red, white and blue," the absence of the comma before "and" introduces no ambiguity, as the structure relies on the natural pause implied by the conjunction rather than additional punctuation. This view holds that simple series—those lacking internal commas, parentheticals, or complex modifiers—do not require the extra mark to maintain parallelism or readability, prioritizing textual economy over uniform comma placement. The Associated Press (AP) Stylebook explicitly codifies this position, instructing writers to "use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in most simple series," such as "The flag is red, white and blue." This guideline, adopted widely in journalism since the early 20th century, reflects a broader editorial preference for brevity in straightforward enumerations, where the serial comma would add visual clutter without enhancing comprehension. Linguists and cognitive psychologists have echoed this by arguing that over-reliance on the comma in uncomplicated contexts may discourage careful sentence structuring, potentially fostering imprecise writing habits; instead, proper phrasing alone suffices to convey list boundaries. In practice, this omission aligns with conventions in and non-academic prose, where the serial comma is routinely skipped in basic lists unless clarity demands it, as evidenced by longstanding usage in newspapers and concise genres. Critics of mandatory inclusion contend that enforcing it universally in simple cases ignores contextual redundancy, akin to punctuating every spoken pause, and may subtly slow perceived reading pace by inserting unneeded separators. Empirical observation of error-free texts without the comma in such scenarios supports the claim of superfluity, as native speakers intuitively parse these structures without confusion.

Aesthetic and Concision Preferences

Opponents of routine serial comma usage emphasize its superfluity in promoting textual economy, particularly in genres constrained by space such as , where each punctuation mark adds to the overall length and production costs. The Stylebook, a primary guide for news writing, explicitly advises against the serial comma in simple series—exemplified by constructions like "red, white and blue"—to minimize punctuation and enhance brevity without sacrificing clarity in unambiguous contexts. This approach aligns with the historical imperatives of print media, where omitting the comma conserves column space, a practice rooted in early 20th-century editorial standards prioritizing efficient communication over exhaustive . Aesthetically, the absence of the serial comma is argued to yield a more fluid visual and rhythmic flow, avoiding the perceived interruption of an additional mark immediately preceding the coordinating conjunction, which can disrupt the natural cadence of reading. In simple lists, such as "apples, oranges and bananas," the conjunction alone signals the list's conclusion, rendering the comma visually redundant and potentially cluttering the line's symmetry. Proponents of omission, including some British style traditions like those of Cambridge University Press, maintain that this restraint fosters elegance and aligns with spoken prosody, where no pause equates to the comma's placement before "and." Critics of routine inclusion further posit that the serial comma imparts an overly formal or pedantic tone in casual or journalistic prose, prioritizing parsimony in punctuation to sustain reader engagement over superfluous markers.

Evidence from Practice and Research

Readability and Comprehension Studies

A 2023 eye-tracking experiment by Angele et al., conducted in Spanish, tested reading processing with and without s, including in list items separated by conjunctions (e.g., "pizzas, pastas(,) and drinks"). The study found that comma presence reduced regressions and total reading times, indicating facilitated syntactic and comprehension, though effects were modest and context-dependent. This provides indirect support for the serial comma's role in lists, as omitted commas increased processing difficulty in series structures. A peer-reviewed study of 1,128 Spanish secondary-education students examined usage progression and its correlation with scores on standardized tests. Proficient application, including in complex sentences and lists, positively correlated with comprehension (r ≈ 0.25-0.35 across grades), suggesting accurate enhances interpretive accuracy, though was not established via intervention. The findings align with general research, where commas signal boundaries to reduce during inference. Direct quantitative studies on the serial comma in English are notably absent from peer-reviewed , with most claims relying on analyses rather than controlled comprehension trials. A 2021 textual analysis of 45 academic articles identified five instances where the serial comma resolved potential ambiguities versus three where omission did, advocating consistent use for clarity without measurable metrics like Flesch scores or error rates. Broader discussions, such as in contexts, assert no universal benefit, as serial comma addition can occasionally disrupt flow in simple lists without improving overall legibility. The scarcity of targeted experiments underscores reliance on logical and anecdotal evidence over empirical data, with no evidence of significant comprehension detriment from consistent serial comma use in controlled settings. In legal contexts, omission of the serial comma has generated ambiguities that trigger litigation, escalate costs, and alter interpretations of statutes or contracts. For instance, the absence of a serial comma in Maine's overtime exemption law—"The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of"—rendered unclear whether "packing for shipment or distribution" denoted a single activity or two distinct ones, prompting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 2017 to vacate summary judgment for the employer and remand for trial, ultimately leading to a $5 million settlement for affected dairy drivers in February 2018. This outcome imposed direct financial liability on Oakhurst Dairy for unpaid wages spanning 2006–2014, while requiring courts to invoke extrinsic aids like legislative history to resolve the textual uncertainty, thereby prolonging proceedings and amplifying expenses for all parties. Similar punctuation disputes in historical U.S. tariff legislation, such as an extraneous comma in an 1872 act, have resulted in erroneous duty exemptions costing taxpayers approximately $2 million (equivalent to $40 million in 2018 dollars), illustrating how minor syntactic choices can yield multimillion-dollar fiscal impacts through misapplied exemptions or penalties. In technical domains, serial comma omission risks misparsing of lists in specifications, manuals, and protocols, potentially propagating errors in , , or compliance. and standards prioritize its use to ensure parallel structure and delimit items unambiguously, as failure to do so could conflate elements in critical enumerations, such as components in a or steps in a procedure. Cornell University's communication explicitly deems the serial comma essential in technical contexts to prevent such interpretive errors that might lead to flawed prototypes, inefficient processes, or regulatory violations. Although high-profile incidents directly attributing operational failures to serial comma absence remain undocumented in public records, experts contend that in fields like —where requirements lists inform code generation—ambiguous phrasing invites divergent implementations, increasing time and defect rates; for example, a list like "initialize variables, load data and execute" might be read as pairing "load data and execute" as a compound action, altering sequence and outcomes. Style guides from organizations like IEEE implicitly endorse consistent for precision, reflecting an understanding that syntactic lapses in can cascade into rework costs exceeding thousands per in complex projects.

Positions in Authoritative Guides

Guides Requiring or Strongly Favoring the Serial Comma

(17th ed., 2017) requires the serial comma before the conjunction in a series of three or more items, describing it as a marker of thoroughness that aligns with preferences in book editing and scholarly writing. The Publication Manual of the (7th ed., 2020) mandates use of the serial comma between elements in a series of three or more items to promote parallelism and avoid misreading, applying this rule consistently in psychological and scientific manuscripts. (MLA) style, per the (9th ed., 2021), incorporates the serial comma before the final "and" or "or" in lists of three or more items, as exemplified in guidance on punctuating series to maintain clarity in literary and humanities scholarship. Oxford University Press house style directs authors to employ the serial comma in lists, such as "2-, 3-, and 5-min intervals," reflecting its origins in the press's early 20th-century guidelines and ongoing preference for precision in . The U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual (2016, section 8.42) stipulates that the serial comma must always precede the conjunction in series of three or more terms, ensuring uniformity in federal documents and printing.

Guides Discouraging or Prohibiting the Serial Comma

The (AP) , a primary reference for American journalism, advises against using the serial comma in most simple series, stating: "Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in most simple series." This rule prioritizes concision in straightforward lists, such as "ham, eggs and chips," while permitting the comma only when ambiguity might arise or in complex constructions involving internal conjunctions. The 2022 edition maintained this stance, though subsequent clarifications emphasized flexibility for clarity without mandating routine inclusion. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage similarly discourages the serial comma except where essential for clarity, as articulated in its guidelines: the stylebook "recommends against serial commas except when needed for clarity." This approach aligns with journalistic economy, avoiding the comma in uncomplicated enumerations like ", Berkeley and New York" unless misinterpretation risks exist. The manual, updated through 2015 with ongoing internal refinements, reflects a preference for streamlined in reporting. The Guardian's style guide, influential in British journalism, explicitly omits the serial comma in straightforward lists, exemplifying: "he ate ham, eggs and chips," while allowing it "sometimes [to] help the reader" in cases of potential confusion. This policy, documented in editions as early as 2004 and reaffirmed in online resources, favors reader flow over systematic , deeming the unnecessary absent complicating factors like nested clauses. Similarly, the prohibits the between the penultimate item and the conjunction unless clarity demands it, as stated: "There is no between the penultimate item in a list and 'and'/'or,' unless needed." These guides, rooted in news and editorial traditions, reflect a broader journalistic inclination toward brevity and rhythm, contrasting with academic or book-publishing norms; however, their rules underscore that omission applies primarily to unambiguous contexts, not as an absolute prohibition.

Guides Allowing Discretionary Use

The Stylebook permits the serial comma's omission in simple series of three or more items but mandates its inclusion when necessary to prevent ambiguity or enhance clarity, such as in complex lists involving internal commas or conjunctions. This approach reflects journalistic priorities for while acknowledging potential misreadings, as exemplified in guidance to insert the comma "if needed for clarity" in sentences like those enumerating items with modifiers. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage similarly advises against routine use of the serial comma, recommending its deployment only "when needed for clarity," thereby granting editors discretion based on contextual demands rather than a fixed rule. This policy aligns with broader newspaper traditions favoring streamlined prose, yet it permits flexibility in cases where omission might confuse readers, such as distinguishing paired elements in lists. In British English contexts, guides like those from often omit the serial comma consistently, while retains it, allowing writers to choose based on house style or personal preference so long as consistency is maintained throughout a document. This discretionary framework prioritizes uniformity over prescription, contrasting with stricter American academic styles, and is echoed in publications like , which generally eschew the comma absent clarity issues. Such guides emphasize situational over , weighing factors like readability in dense against brevity, though critics argue this variability can introduce inconsistencies in editing workflows.

Prominent Disputes and Outcomes

O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy Case

In O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy, No. 16-1901 (1st Cir. 2017), three delivery drivers employed by Oakhurst Dairy in sued the company and its co-owner for unpaid wages under the state's statute, 26 M.R.S. § 664, claiming they were entitled to time-and-a-half pay for hours worked over 40 per week. The drivers handled loading, transporting, and delivering dairy products but did not engage in production activities like or packaging, working shifts of 8 to 14 hours daily, 5 to 7 days , without compensation. Oakhurst argued the drivers fell under a statutory exemption in 26 M.R.S. § 684(3)(A), which excludes from requirements employees engaged in "the , packing, freezing, processing, or packaging by freezing, , dehydration, cooking, pasteurizing, and bottling, preserving, or the preparation or packaging for shipment or distribution of..." (emphasis added to highlight disputed phrasing). The core dispute centered on the absence of a serial (Oxford) comma before "or distribution" in the exemption's list, creating potential in whether "distribution" (i.e., delivery) constituted a standalone exempt activity or was modified by "preparation or packaging for shipment." Oakhurst contended the phrase should be parsed as exempting preparation or packaging for either shipment or distribution, encompassing the drivers' delivery work. The drivers countered that without a comma after "shipment," the structure implied "distribution" as a separate, unmodified term potentially outside the exemption's scope, especially given inconsistent comma usage elsewhere in the (e.g., the comma before "and bottling"). The U.S. District Court for the District of granted to Oakhurst, finding no ambiguity and deeming delivery exempt. On March 13, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding the exemption language grammatically ambiguous under ordinary English usage and Maine's legislative drafting conventions, which sometimes employ serial commas but omit them here in a manner fostering doubt. The court noted that Maine law requires narrow construction of overtime exemptions, resolving ambiguities against the employer; thus, delivery did not clearly qualify as exempt, entitling drivers to overtime. The opinion famously opened: "For want of a comma, we have this case," underscoring how the punctuation omission generated multiple plausible readings without favoring the serial comma as a mandatory rule. The case was remanded for further proceedings on damages, estimated initially at up to $10 million across affected employees. In February 2018, Oakhurst settled the class-action claims with the drivers for $5 million in back overtime pay, avoiding . The ruling highlighted punctuation's role in but did not establish precedent mandating the serial comma, instead emphasizing context-specific ambiguity resolution under Maine's worker-protective framework.

Ambiguities in Public and Commercial Communications

In public communications, the absence of the serial comma has occasionally sparked debate over clarity, as seen in a 2019 advertisement describing its collections as "the whole wealth of human knowledge, endeavour and experience to date." Without a comma after "endeavour," the phrasing adhered to non-serial style but drew criticism on for grammatical inconsistency, with users expressing frustration such as "Of all places, I would expect the to employ an Oxford comma" and noting the omission "is killing me." This reaction highlighted perceived in grouping the abstract concepts, though no formal misinterpretation or policy change resulted. Newspaper listings provide another instance, as in a reported Times description of a gala event's highlights: "the food, the entertainment and the speeches." The missing serial comma before "and" allowed potential as "the entertainment and the speeches" forming a single highlight alongside "the food," rather than three distinct elements, prompting ongoing citation in grammar discussions for how it could confuse readers about event emphases. Such public media examples illustrate risks in concise formats like program guides, where stylistic choices prioritizing brevity over serial may obscure item separation without leading to widespread errors. In commercial settings like menus and promotions, missing serial commas have generated anecdotal confusion, such as a cafe wrap described as containing "brown rice, avocado, lettuce, tomato, dressing and salmon, chicken or beef," which ambiguously pairs "dressing and salmon" or unclearly lists proteins. While not always documented in peer-reviewed studies, these cases underscore potential for customer misordering or dissatisfaction in fast-paced retail environments, reinforcing style guides' emphasis on serial commas for lists in advertising to prevent interpretive disputes. Conversely, including the serial comma can occasionally introduce unintended groupings, as noted in analyses of marketing copy where it alters appositive structures, though empirical evidence of commercial fallout remains limited to interpretive critiques rather than quantifiable losses.

References

  1. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/punctuation-capitalization/what-is-the-oxford-comma/
  2. https://www.scribbr.com/commas/oxford-comma/
  3. https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/punctuation/serial-comma
  4. https://proofed.com/writing-tips/a-definitive-guide-to-the-oxford-comma/
  5. https://www.ragan.com/oxford-comma-ap-style-when-to-use-grammar-girl/
  6. https://www.writersdigest.com/write-better-fiction/end-the-debate-why-the-oxford-comma-or-serial-comma-is-so-cool
  7. https://attentiontodetail.com/2023/09/21/5-arguments-for-using-the-oxford-comma-aka-serial-comma/
  8. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html
  9. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/us/dairy-drivers-oxford-comma-case-settlement-trnd
  10. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180723-the-commas-that-cost-companies-millions
  11. https://www.ohiobar.org/member-tools-benefits/practice-resources/practice-library-search/practice-library/2018-ohio-lawyer/the-case-of-the-missing-comma/
  12. https://style.mla.org/serial-commas-and-semicolons/
  13. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas/faq0103.html
  14. https://www.scribbr.com/commas/serial-comma/
  15. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas/faq0077.html
  16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07268602.2022.2123700
  17. https://cmosshoptalk.com/2020/02/11/oxford-chicago-and-the-serial-comma/
  18. https://www.perfectit.com/blog/why-we-do-give-a-fstarstarstar-about-the-oxford-comma-and-why-you-should-too
  19. https://blog.inkyfool.com/2010/07/oxford-comma.html
  20. https://www.scribendi.com/academy/articles/oxford_comma_importance.en.html
  21. https://www.dabblewriter.com/articles/oxford-comma
  22. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/mechanics/parallel_structure.html
  23. https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/parallel_lists.htm
  24. https://blog.penningtonpublishing.com/the-serial-oxford-comma-for-the-want-of-a-nail/
  25. https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/the-serial-harvard-or-oxford-comma/
  26. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/oxford-comma-reasoned-view-grant-campbell-clqge
  27. https://www.dailywritingtips.com/the-serial-comma-is-ok-with-me/
  28. https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/commas/oxford-comma/
  29. https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/the-ambiguous-oxford-comma/
  30. https://www.adamsdrafting.com/more-syntactic-ambiguity-the-serial-comma/
  31. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/16-1901/16-1901-2017-03-13.html
  32. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/think-commas-don-t-matter-omitting-one-cost-maine-dairy-n847151
  33. https://punctuationmarks.org/comma-before-and-in-list/
  34. https://www.instructionalsolutions.com/blog/oxford-comma
  35. https://www.prnewsonline.com/explainer-how-to-use-oxford-commas-per-ap-style/
  36. https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/opinion/story/2023-06-12/a-word-please-ap-softens-on-the-oxford-comma-but-its-rule-against-the-punctuation-mark-can-make-sense
  37. https://www.righttouchediting.com/2024/10/03/ap-style-and-the-serial-comma/
  38. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-on-thinking/202012/why-the-oxford-comma-is-unnecessary
  39. https://wintersediting.com/the-controversial-comma/
  40. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas/faq0086.html
  41. https://www.proofreadnow.com/blog/the-oxford-comma-use-it-or-ditch-it
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9688910/
  43. https://www.fransz.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Christmas.pdf
  44. https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/63422/does-the-oxford-comma-increase-readability
  45. https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Commentary-pdf-1.pdf
  46. https://lawreview.syr.edu/for-want-of-a-comma/
  47. https://chec.engineering.cornell.edu/serial-comma-oxford-comma/
  48. https://www.reddit.com/r/technicalwriting/comments/m2i8rm/can_you_help_me_save_the_oxford_comma_in_my_style/
  49. https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Commas/faq0066.html
  50. https://academic.oup.com/adaptation/pages/style_guide
  51. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016.pdf
  52. https://www.apstylebook.com/
  53. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/opinion/for-want-of-a-comma.html
  54. https://archive.nytimes.com/afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/faqs-on-style-2/
  55. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/insider/new-york-times-stylebook.html
  56. https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-style-guide-o
  57. https://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2004/07/15/styleguidepdfjuly2004.pdf
  58. https://umarcomm.umn.edu/blog/2024/04/08/even-oxford-leaves-out-oxford-comma-sometimes
  59. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-an-oxford-comma
  60. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/o-connor-v-oakhurst-dairy
  61. https://www.wagehourblog.com/maine-delivery-drivers-deemed-overtime-eligible-for-want-of-a-comma
  62. https://jstooksberry.medium.com/no-the-oxford-comma-didnt-win-in-court-9acc0758e6db
  63. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7451473/British-Library-sends-social-media-meltdown-missing-Oxford-comma-advertisement.html
  64. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/23/who-gives-a-stuff-about-an-oxford-comma-we-all-should
  65. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-that-show-the-importance-of-the-Oxford-comma
  66. https://procomm.ieee.org/who-cares-about-an-oxford-comma-i-do/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.