It is common knowledge that writing is fun and exciting, especially when you want to express yourself vividly. You want to write from the heart, devoid of the standards of journalism. But to some extent, you would have to write based on the conventions of grammar. One of these conventions includes the use of the Oxford comma.
You may be wondering what the Oxford comma is. You may, in fact, have used it before. In this article, we will introduce you to the Oxford comma and why you should be using it in your writing.
The Oxford Comma Defined
The Oxford comma, also known as the serial comma, is the final comma that is placed before a coordinating conjunction in a set of three or more objects. These coordinating conjunctions include “and” or “or.” Editors and writers have varied opinions on whether or not people should use the serial comma. Even its use also differs between and among regional varieties of English. Nevertheless, the comma has been used in various pieces throughout the ages.
Let us provide you with an example:
Sentence 1: John brought us apples, oranges and grapes.
Sentence 2: John brought us apples, oranges, and grapes.
If you look at the Sentence 1 above, the Oxford comma was not used. Hence, we can conclude that the two fruits namely, “oranges and grapes” are considered as one. In Sentence 2, the Oxford comma was used. This changes the whole structure of the sentence. We can safely assume that John brought three different fruits: apples, oranges, and also grapes.
You should note that the Oxford comma is optional, which means you are not required to use it. As a matter of fact, it is not a common practice in countries such as the United Kingdom, South Africa, or Australia. Although it is a standard grammar rule in the United States, it is more common when dealing with non-journalistic forms of prose.
Importance of the Oxford Comma
As we have mentioned earlier, using the serial comma or Oxford comma is entirely optional. However, the meanings of most – if not all – sentences might change drastically without it. This is one of the reasons why the Oxford comma is important.
Let us take for instance several examples presented below.
Sentence 1: Cynthia invited her two bosses, Larry and Bert.
Sentence 2: Cynthia invited her two bosses, Larry, and Bert.
With the omission of a comma, the meaning of the sentence changes completely. For the first sentence, Cynthia invited two people – her two bosses. This is because the absence of the Oxford comma makes it appear that the bosses are in fact, Larry and Bert. However, in the second sentence, Cynthia invited four people – her two bosses, Larry, and finally, we have Bert. The presence of the Oxford comma makes it appear that Larry and Bert are separate entities from the two bosses.
One of the other reasons why the Oxford comma is necessary is so that we could make our thoughts as clear as possible. When writing, the stress or pause which we intend might not be translated fully into text. This might confuse a lot of readers. Let us look at another example where this reason is evident.
Sentence 1: Dimitri drove with his best friend, a doctor and an engineer.
Sentence 2: Dimitri drove with his best friend, a doctor, and an engineer.
If we try to study the first sentence, we may conclude that Dimitri’s best friend is a doctor and an engineer at the same time. This is because the absence of the Oxford comma allows us to think that these two terms (namely, the doctor and the engineer) describe his best friend. However, if we try to add the Oxford comma after the conjunction, the whole sentence forms a new meaning. The second sentence now means that Dimitri drove with three different people – his best friend, a doctor, and also the engineer.
Here is another example where confusion might arise when the Oxford comma is absent.
Sentence 1: She dedicated her speech to her parents, Walt Whitman and God.
Sentence 2: She dedicated her speech to her parents, Walt Whitman, and God.
Basing from the first sentence, it is likely that the speech was dedicated to her parents, namely Walt Whitman and God. This might confuse readers since they could comprehend that her parents’ names are indeed Walt Whitman and God. To avoid confusion and ambiguity, the comma is essential. If we look at the second sentence, it becomes more evident – that the speech was dedicated to her parents, to Walt Whitman, and finally, to God.
To read more about common oxford comma issues and other punctuation errors, you should read Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
History of the Oxford Comma
Like the comma itself, the origins of the Oxford comma is also ambiguous. But before we do get to know the person who is attributed to this grammar style, we have to give credit to the person who introduced comma. An Italian painter in the 15th century, Aldus Manutius (or Aldo Manuzio as others call him) introduced the concept of the comma in order to separate things.
Horace Hart, on the other hand, is attributed to be the person who introduced the serial comma to the world. Hart is a controller of the Oxford University Press from the year 1893 to 1915. In the year 1905, he published a book entitled, “Hart’s Rules for Compositors and Readers,” which served as a style guide for the employers who used to work at the press. The Oxford comma was included in such rule.
There were others, however, which were attributed to being the one who introduced such concept. Peter Sutcliff credited F. Howard Collins for introducing Oxford comma. It was noted that Collins stated it in his 1912 book entitled, “Author & Printer: A Guide for Authors, Editors, Printers, Correctors of the Press, Compositors, and Typists.” Nevertheless, it was Sutcliff himself who called the Oxford comma as such in his 1978 book regarding the history of the Oxford University Press.
No matter the ambiguous history, there is one thing that is clear – the need to use the Oxford comma. Why not try using it today?
Prices last updated on 2026-04-30
SENTENCE 2: DIMITRI DROVE WITH HIS BEST FRIEND, A DOCTOR, AND AN ENGINEER.
There are two interpretations possible for Sentence 2.
1. Dimitri was accompanied by two people, his best friend who is a doctor, and an engineer.
2. Dimitri was accompnaied by three people, his best friend, a doctor, and an engineer.
Oxford comma proponents online routinely make themselves guilty of some pretty embarrassing sophisms. From an article like this one gains the impression that the Oxford comma is a near-indispensable tool for clarity, but if this is the case, how come that it is simply regarded as an error in virtually every other Germanic or Romantic language? French, German, Italian, Spanish, the Scandinavian languages and more all thrive without it (I have heard conflicting accounts about its use in Portuguese).
At its heart, the Oxford comma is meant to clear up the meaning of the preceding comma. The comma can serve several meanings in a sentence, among them those of a list and of an apposition, that is, basically, the addition of a noun phrase (or some closely related construction) in a sentence. In the sentence “My mother, a nurse by profession, took care of his broken arm” works well grammatically without the extra information within the commas, which fills out information.
Examples in favor of the Oxford comma almost always rely on the same construction, namely a sentence ending with a list of three, where the last two items taken together can be understood as an apposition to the first item, but not if they are separated. However, an apposition may also arise between two members of a list. As D Galarneau has remarked, the third remains ambiguous with the Oxford comma, but the ambiguity is different: we don’t know if his best friend is also the doctor, or if these are two different people. The first example here is simply nonsensical (“oranges and grapes” will not be considered as one category here no matter what), but for two of the other examples it is easy to make slight edits to the sentences to make the version with the Oxford comma the ambiguous one. Just consider the following:
Cynthia invited her boss, Larry, and Bert.
She dedicated her speech to her father, Walt Whitman, and God.
In both cases the Oxford comma introduces ambiguity: Larry could be Cynthia’s boss and the dedicatress could have Walt Whitman for her father. If we remove the Oxford commas, however, each example becomes impossible to misinterpret:
Cynthia invited her boss, Larry and Bert.
She dedicated her speech to her father, Walt Whitman and God.
If these are truly the best arguments in favor of the Oxford comma, it is probably time to get rid of it in English as well.
Excellent!
If her father had been Walt Whitman, then perhaps the best way, stylistically, to defuse potential ambiguity would be: “She dedicated her speech to her father Walt Whitman and to God.”
This was copied on Facebook by a page called You Should Try Reading, together with a comical (it always has to be comical, doesn’t it, as ridicule is the resort of weak logic) photo showing two versions of a sentence, “We invited the rhinoceri, Washington, and Lincoln,” followed by a depiction of two rhinoceri, then Washington and Lincoln, and then “We invited the rhinoceri, Washington and Lincolk,” followed by a depiction of two rhinoceri, one with Washington’s face, the other with Lincoln’s. Ha, ha, ha. I do say “Ha, ha, ha,” because it’s amusing how these examples shatter the argument they are attempting to make.
I replied:
Very interestingly, you are by this admitting that there is an appropriate place not to use the “Oxford Comma.” Like, “We invited the former presidents, Washington and Lincoln.” Going by your own logic, I mean. And if Washington and Lincoln really were rhinoceri, then the second version would be, again on your own argument, correct. Therefore, it is a matter of context, what one actually means, and presumably a matter of intonation, of “style,” not any rigid rule dictating a universal “Oxford Comma.” And in actuality, were I to pen the sentence about inviting either rhinoceri named Washingon and Lincoln or presidents named Washington and Lincoln, in my sentence there would be no comma at all: “We invited the rhinoceri Washington and Lincoln; We invited the former presidents Washington and Lincoln.” All the same, you have made the argument that “We invited the rhinoceri, Washington and Lincoln” works equally well if that’s what the beasts are named, and I will concur with you.
The fallacy intrinsic to your entire position begins with this absurd straw man: ‘If you look at the Sentence 1 above, the Oxford comma was not used. Hence, we can conclude that the two fruits namely, “oranges and grapes” are considered as one. In Sentence 2, the Oxford comma was used. This changes the whole structure of the sentence. We can safely assume that John brought three different fruits: apples, oranges, and also grapes.’
So on what planet, and by what extraterrestrial never before acquainted with terran fruits, will it be assumed that “oranges and grapes” are “considered one”? Not by any sentient being I’ve ever encountered. There’s no “hence” about it, it’s simply ridiculous. If the accepted convention is that the comma replaces “and,” so that where you supply “and” before the last item in the series the comma is unnecessary, every reader gifted with something at least a tad more intelligence than an amoeba (and at least as much common sense) perceives, however miraculous it may strike some, that an orange is not a grape and we are talking about three different kinds of fruit here. Just like the “rhinoceri” argument, this one also shoots the whole Oxford Comma position in the foot and, presumably, like the Australian koala, then leaves.
Should have been “…gifted with at least a tad more intelligence….” It’s a pity there’s no “Edit” feature here letting me fix that!