Unlike the Oxford comma, there are specific grammatical points that are non-negotiable. We know that names should always be graced with a capital letter and that sentences must always come to a definite conclusion with a little dot that we have to come to call a full stop. There are no ifs, no buts, no maybes – that’s just how things are done.
Yet while much of the English language comes with a relatively strict set of guidelines, several points remain contentious, which can really get the blood going among the grammar firebrands of this world.
One such lexical hand grenade is the Oxford comma, a tiny splash on a page but one which tends to ignite phonological passion as few other grammatical points do. So what is this most divisive mark splitting our society? A merciful clause or a comma too far?
The Oxford comma is the final comma used before a conjunction when listing three or more items and is sometimes known as a serial comma. For example, ‘My breakfast contained eggs, sausage and bacon’ does not contain an Oxford comma, while ‘My breakfast contained eggs, sausage, and bacon’ does.
The comma takes its name from the Oxford University Press, where it has been a mainstay in the Oxford Style Manual for over a hundred years. While we can’t be sure about its exact origins, it has appeared sporadically throughout texts for centuries, two men were fundamental to its formal introduction.
The writer F. H. Collins, who in 1905 published the Authors’ and Printers’ Dictionary, and Horace Hart, once the Controller of the Press at OUP, who laid out his Rules for Compositors and Readers in the same year, were both vigorous supporters of its use and their ideas are still staunchly followed by some to this day.
In British English, the use of the Oxford comma is still somewhat limited, but it’s more commonly found across the pond in American English. It’s rare to find it in media where writers and editors are highly conscious about character figures. However, you’re much more likely to see it in scientific or technical publishing to limit potential confusion.
Before we jump into the ideological pit that can be grammatical theory, it’s important to stress that the Oxford comma is by no means a structural point with the same relevance as capitalisation or full stops. Some use it, some don’t, and there won’t be any definitive conclusions anytime soon.
There are two main reasons one might use an Oxford comma. The first is simply because you have to in order to write within an industry or institution’s set of guidelines. You can bleat all you want about it, but if your boss or lecturer requests that you use it, you’ll be expending needless energy by fighting against such an edict.
The second reason has more to do with the interpretation of the sentence and can help the reader by clarifying the meaning. If we briefly consider the role of your everyday comma – to signify where a breath should be taken or as a way of underpinning precise meaning – its wild and loose cousin from Oxford can be used in much the same way.
Consider the following sentence without an Oxford Comma. ‘I’ve ordered 7 tonnes of cement and 5 tonnes of gravel and sand. Written this way, there is a slight ambiguity as to whether the sentence refers to a mix of 5 tonnes of gravel and sand or 5 tonnes of gravel and 5 tonnes of sand – a confusion that could be cleared up with the inclusion of an Oxford comma.
Another example would be, ‘I’ve bought Christmas presents for my sons, Jim and Steve. This sounds jarring to the human brain because we try to piece together the information quickly and conclude that the sons’ names are Jim and Steve. However, if we add an Oxford comma, we transform the sentence to ‘I’ve bought Christmas presents for my sons, Jim, and Steve,’ which adds a rhythm to the sentence that makes it clear we are listing those who have been bought a present.
Many see its use as a bridge too far – a pompous dash that has come to epitomise hypercorrection and grammar policing. Some argue that instead of limiting ambiguity, it may inflame uncertainty.
The following sentence, ‘I had some help from Paul, a builder, and Steve’, contains an Oxford comma but does leave the reader wondering whether the sentence is referring to three people, one of whom is rather rudely referred to as a ‘builder’, or that the word builder is being used as an adjective to describe Paul.
Some will also argue that the inclusion of a conjunction should be enough and that by adding a superfluous comma, we are simply crowding the sentence and even adding a repetition of meaning – an effect known as tautology which is generally frowned upon.
First and foremost, the Oxford comma needn’t be the divisive landmine many see it as. Writing is all about expression but can quickly become bogged down in a quagmire of right and wrong, rules and expectations. Using or not using one often comes down to a style choice, and that’s absolutely fine.
As mentioned earlier, some institutions or industries will mandate the use of the Oxford comma, and if that’s the case, we suggest you get on with it regardless of your lexical beliefs. Sometimes, you might even be asked not to use an Oxford comma to write within a set of style points.
We suggest looking at this through an impartial prism and edit by following two simple rules.
