Writing Tip

Always Use the Serial Comma

Difficulty Level: Basic

Recommendation: Always Use the Serial Comma

What is the serial comma? Well, everyone knows what a list is: It is a series of items. In English, we separate these items with commas when there are three or more items in the list (unless there is internal punctuation in one or more of the items, in which case we separate the items in the main list with semicolons). The last item in the list gets attached to the previous items with a conjunction, such as “and” or “or,” like this: The technician tested the new device against voltage sags, voltage swells, and transients. The controversy in English composition is whether to include that last comma or not (the one after “swells”). If it is included, it’s called a “serial comma” (or fancy pants will call it an Oxford or Harvard comma). Many companies follow the Chicago Manual of Style, and it encourages the use of the serial comma. Journalists omit it (following the guidance of the Associated Press Stylebook). But here’s the rub: Some people say that it’s wholly unnecessary. Period. And some people say that it should only be used to avoid ambiguity.

I visited Wikipedia to discover the rationale of those who oppose the serial comma. Very flimsy. One reason is because it can actually create an ambiguity. Here is the example from Wikipedia:

“In some circumstances the serial-comma convention can introduce ambiguity. An example would be a dedication reading:

To my mother, Ayn Rand, and God”

Well, it’s true that “Ayn Rand” can be confused as an appositive (a restatement of something), but leaving off the final comma does not fully resolve the ambiguity (also, the context will probably confirm that the author’s mother is not Ayn Rand). As always, think before your pen lowers to action. Like most rules of grammar and mechanics, the serial-comma rule should not be applied indiscriminately. If adding a comma somehow creates an ambiguity or vagueness, recast the list to make more sense. In this case, the resolution is to re-arrange the words, thus: To my mother, God, and Ayn Rand. Also, you can always rely on bullets and numbers to make things crystal clear. The serial comma is not the villain here.

Finally, let’s look at the last seemingly reasonable admonition to use the serial comma only when it is necessary to prevent ambiguity—and that is a concept called “psychic distance.” This foo foo term means the distance between the author (his psychology) and the text he is writing. In the heat of composition, he knows the subject very well, and he knows the intended meaning of every verbal construct on the page. Another way of saying this is: The author is very close to the text—in some cases, too close to the text. And that is the problem with the optional comma. The author is in no position to determine whether the omission of the final comma may cause confusion. His optics are clouded by original intent, and he, least of all, is able to resolve that rhetorical conundrum—where does one item in the list end and another begin? The author is wholly in control of his commas, and there is an infinite number of them available to him, so my solemn question is this: What harm results from consistently including the serial comma? In my 23 years of experience as an editor, I have never encountered a toxic serial comma that turns a list into a morass of confusion. And that is why I heart commas.

The bottom line of this controversy has already been inked by many companies. By mandating adherence to the Chicago Manual of Style, they have mandated the serial comma.