Homicidal Panda Flees After Dinner; Comma Confusion or Poor Writing?

 I wrote a paper on the Oxford Comma. While I find the Oxford Comma humorous, the paper may be a little boring. I include it anyway:

Last year on vacation, Bradley met a prostitute, Sarah Palin, and Justin Bieber. While some may say Sarah Palin prostitutes herself for the sake of publicity, this sentence is actually meant to indicate that Bradley met three different people on his vacation. However, because of the use of a serial comma, it appears that the word prostitute is actually an appositive identifying Ms. Palin. The serial comma is the one that occurs in the listing of a series before the conjunction. Many call this the Oxford Comma, or occasionally the Harvard Comma, because those style guides identify its usage (Lynch 57). However, despite the prestigious terminology, the Oxford Comma is nuisance punctuation, causing heated debate for grammarians. Even the style guides that seem to endorse it use terminology that is ambiguous and subject to interpretation. In the current writing environment where space is at a premium and professors insist that punctuation stay at a minimum, it is time for the Oxford Comma to expire. It is a myth the Oxford Comma is necessary in a listing of a series because it creates unnecessary confusion, it is redundant and it is contradictory to common application.

One should not include an Oxford Comma in the listing of a series because it can create unnecessary confusion. As the opening sentence demonstrates, the Oxford Comma is hard to decipher from an appositive, which Harry Shaw explains “is a noun or a pronoun, or a phrase acting as one of these two parts of speech, which provides explanation and is usually nonrestrictive in function” (72-3). The sentence creates confusion by using an Oxford Comma because the reader is unable to determine whether the prostitute is actually a third person or if Ms. Palin is the prostitute. Comma placement is important to convey meaning in a sentence. Lynne Truss’s popular illustrated book, Eats, Shoots & Leaves, illustrates the change of meaning of many simple sentences by only changing the comma placement. These books demonstrate the hilarity of misplaced commas by showing the differences in intended meaning through humorous cartoons. Truss displays “Eat here, and get gas!” in front of an illustration of a convenience store on one page, and then displays “Eat here and get gas!” in front of obviously bloated family eating at a greasy-spoon restaurant (14-15). As this indicates, comma placement can lead to hilarious or potentially embarrassing misunderstandings. The Oxford Comma lends itself to confusion more frequently than other forms of punctuation. In most cases, the ambiguity of the sentence is easy to correct. Sometimes, people claim that an Oxford Comma makes more sense. For example, Harry Mount cites, “I’d like to thank my parents, Elvis and Marilyn Monroe” (13). The clarity of this sentence slightly improves by the addition of the Oxford Comma. Instead, true clarity of the sentence requires a change in syntax. Writing, “I’d like to thank Elvis, Marilyn Monroe and my parents” is the most effective way to ensure clarity. The Oxford Comma is not necessary.

One should not use an Oxford Comma when listing a series because it creates redundancy. Many people remember learning in grade school a comma can be used as a substitute for and. The New Well-Tempered Sentence states, “A comma is used to indicate omitted words readily understood from the context” (Gordon 52). Commas used in a list of a series stand as a substitution for the conjunction. In the example sentence, the comma between prostitute and Ms. Palin represents the missing word; therefore, the missing and easily re-inserts, stating, “Bradley met a prostitute and Sarah Palin and Justin Bieber.” However, re-insertion of the missing words with the Oxford Comma in the sentence forces it to read, ‘. . . Sarah Palin and and Justin Bieber.’ Use of the Oxford Comma creates unintended redundancy.

Using an Oxford Comma in a series goes against standard practice, despite the style books’ permission. After it was mistakenly reported in July that the Oxford Comma was being removed from Oxford University Press’s style guide, Harry Mount wrote a scathing article that asserts:

The horrible piece of punctuation has survived a pendant war. WITH all due respect to the ancient university, just because you put the word ‘Oxford’ in front of something, it doesn’t make it immune from criticism. An Oxford Blue is pretty impressive. Oxford shoes look nice and smart; but the Oxford Comma? What a horrible thing. Thank God that the university’s branding people decided to remove it from their style book. (26)

The article goes on to explain the Oxford University Press is retaining the Oxford comma, and it berates the choice. While some formal style books for scholarly papers and literature indicate the Oxford comma should be used, newsrooms and journalists discontinued its use years ago. The Independent points out, “We don’t have a Cambridge No Comma” (Bywater). The decision to use or omit the Oxford Comma changes with every style book. R. J. McCutcheon researched the use of the Oxford Comma and reports, “I have checked magazines having a total circulation of much more than thirty millions. More than half the readers must do without the aid of the comma before the conjunction in series, and they probably experience little difficulty in grasping the writers’ thought” (252-3). He goes on to state that Dr. Stuart Robinson claims “that the practice of using the comma is more common in well-written and well-edited books in America than it is in England” (qtd. in McCutcheon 253). In fact, The Global English Style Guide suggests using semicolons to circumvent confusion in separating a series (Kohl 193). The use of the Oxford Comma is in decline all over the world.

Because the Oxford Comma causes confusion, is redundant and is now only in sporadic use, it is time for it to die. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers states, “The primary purpose of punctuation is to ensure the clarity and readability of writing” (66). However, the Oxford Comma does not serve this purpose. Clarity of writing when listing a series is only ensured by good writing and proofreading. Placement of the Oxford Comma does not enhance understanding. Punctuation changes are extremely common in the progression of the English language. David Crystal writes, “Early English manuscripts present an array of punctuation marks which look very different from those used today. Some have now fallen out of use, whereas others have developed over the centuries into their modern counterparts” (282).  However, the death of the Oxford Comma is proving painstakingly slow. R.J. MuCutcheon’s article about its declining use is over seventy years old. Supporters of the Oxford Comma rally together and protest each time anyone suggests its elimination. Vanity Fair reports a popular song by Vampire Weekend refers to the phenomena. The article quotes the lead singer, Ezra Koenig, as saying, “There was a group at Columbia called Students for the Preservation of the Oxford Comma. I didn’t think about it too much but, a few months later while sitting at a piano at my parents’ house, I started writing the song and the first thing that came out was, ‘Who gives a fuck about an Oxford Comma?’” (Hogan). Of course, the overwhelming answer to this question is apparently people. Mount’s article suggesting its elimination sparked thousands of letters to the editor of The Daily Telegraph. Over four dozen were published, stating everything from examples of its necessity to personal attacks of Mount’s intelligence. The mistaken report that it was being eliminated sparked a Twitter campaign that rocketed around the world. Even a book that advocates the elimination of antiquated English rules dances around the subject. The title is Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins; The Careful Writer’s Guide to the Taboos, Bugbears and Outmoded Rules of English Usage, which clearly avoids the usage of the outdated Oxford Comma. However, the book avoids the controversial subject by never addressing the use of a serial comma within its text. Any suggestion of its elimination is met with strict opposition. Warren Clements explains that his report on the Oxford Comma invoked an “avalanche of responses” that is “full of puns.” He writes, “‘I can’t stand these leftist Oxford communists!’ wrote one contributor ‘Skinny Dipper.’ Bob McGowan winced at last week’s reference to ‘the comma before the storm’” (R8). The massive amount of controversy surrounding such a little mark is quite humorous. However, the controversy needs to end with the death of the Oxford Comma. Comma usage is extremely difficult to master. Poor usage causes confusion and problems in writing. Shaw writes, “Its varied and distinct uses result in its being by far the most troublesome of the marks; in fact, comma usage varies so greatly that only a few rules can be considering unchanging” (64). Eliminating the Oxford Comma from usage should be the next change made to reduce the trouble with punctuation.

Works Cited

Bernstein, Theodore M. Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins; The Careful Writer’s Guide to the Taboos, Bugbears and Outmoded Rules of English Usage. New York, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2000. Print.

Bywater, Michael. “The University, the Angry Writers, and the Alleged Death of the Oxford Comma; A New Style Guide Ruling has Stunned Punctuation Purists. Michael Bywater is Thrilled.” The Independent 1 Jul 2011. LexisNexis. Web. 1 Nov 2011.

Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.

Clements, Warren. “Underestimate the Oxford Comma at Your Peril.” The Globe and Mail. 16 Jul 2011. R8. MLA International Bibliography. Web 29 Oct. 2011.

Gordon, Karen Elizabeth. The New Well-Tempered Sentence. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1993. Print.

Hogan, Michael. “Michael Hogan: Vampire Weekend’s ‘Oxford Comma,’ Explained.” Vanity Fair. 28 Jan 2008. MLA International Bibliography  Web. 1 Nov 2011.

Kohl, John R. The Global English Style Guide: Writing Clear, Translatable Documentation for a Global Market. Cary: SAS Institute Inc., 2008. Print.

Lynch, Jack. The English Language: A Users Guide. Newburyport, Focus Publishing/R. Pullins Co., 2008. Print.

McCutcheon, R. J. “The Serial Comma Before ‘and’ and ‘or’.” American Speech, 15.3 Oct 1940: 250-254. JSTOR. Web. 29 Oct 2011.

MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2009. Print.

Mount, Harry. “Put a Full Stop to the Oxford Comma; Only the Prissy and Fussy Would Mourn its Passing.” The Daily Telegraph 2 Jul 2011: 26. LexisNexis. Web 5 Nov. 2011.

Shaw, Harry. Punctuate it Right! New York: Harper & Row Pub., 1963. Print.

Truss, Lynne. Eats, Shoots & Leaves: Why, Commas Really Do Make a Difference! New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 2006. Print

Well, the Oxford Comma is probably here to stay since it has a fan club and a t-shirt.

 Although my paper makes it clear that I don't necessarily agree, it pleases me to know that other people out there care this much about something like a little comma. I am not alone in the world.