When I began editing about 30 years ago, I noted several errors that consistently occurred in the manuscripts I worked on. Sentence fragments, as well as run-ons, interfered with the flow and sometimes the clarity of a literary piece. Run-on sentences are self-explanatory and easy to point out to a writer. Fragments are a bit more difficult, especially when a writer seeks to justify their usage. The big question is whether a reader will agree with the author or find the fragment disjointed or incomplete. But these are topics for another post. By a landslide, the biggest bane of the authors whose books I edited was punctuation, with the lowly comma taking first place among the common troublemakers.
End punctuation is generally clear from the structure of the sentence, but its absence results in a run-on sentence, also call a fused sentence according to Grammarly. Internal punctuation is another story. To some extent, it can be used at the discretion of the writer; and at times, punctuation rules can be broken. To do this, however, the writer must know the rules and demonstrate in the writing an understanding of their proper function in a sentence; only then is it acceptable to break a rule in isolated situations. I'll cover this in a future post.
The most contested punctuation mark I have encountered is the Oxford comma, sometimes called the serial comma or series comma (the inclusion of a comma preceding the conjunction "and" in a series of three or more elements). Two schools of thought on the inclusion or exclusion of this small but essential bit of punctuation are equally adamant that they are right and the opposite viewpoint is absolutely wrong. Rather than debating the issue further by presenting both sides of the argument—which would likely end in the usual stalemate—let's look at the Oxford comma from a different point of view: that of the reader.
Most people who read, whether fiction and non-fiction, do so for enjoyment or for edification. In both cases, they likely desire a clear, easy to understand narrative that flows smoothly and effectively. Obviously, a number of elements contribute to a satisfying read, but we will focus here on just the Oxford comma and why it is or is not an important contributor to understanding the written material.
Let's first consider some examples of the ambiguity, confusion, and/or absurdity created when the Oxford comma is omitted. (Cited examples found online at https://thesewaneepurple.org/2017/09/30/on-the-oxford-comma/)
I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God. (Might the reader wonder if the author's lineage was confirmed by DNA test?)
Top stories: World leaders at Mandela tribute, Obama-Castro handshake and same-sex marriage date set… (Do you think the reader may find that handshake between Obama and Castro less newsworthy than their upcoming same-sex marriage? I'm curious about how Michelle Obama feels about this.)
We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin... (Do you suppose a reader might question this statement in light of the world's propensity for international misunderstandings?)
Point made. All three quotes clearly need the Oxford comma before the conjunction in the series for clarification. This is not open for debate.
Is it ever possible for the Oxford comma to lead to ambiguity? According to The Chicago Manual of Style Seventeenth Edition, this can, on rare occasions, happen. At the bottom of page 371 (item 6.19), the following example can confuse the reader: I thanked my mother, Lady Gaga, and Madonna. A reader might erroneously conclude that Lady Gaga is in apposition to sentence's author and therefore is the author's parent. This sentence would benefit from eliminating all the commas, replacing them with "and" preceded by no punctuation.
A further notation (6.21) in the CMOS states that when the conjunction is replaced with an ampersand, a comma should not be used (Tom, Dick & Harry).
In conclusion, it appears that, while the Oxford comma is often necessary for the sake of clarity, this is not always the case. So both sides are right sometimes and wrong sometimes. It's all in the construction of the sentence and the clarity of the information. If a possibility exists for the reader to misunderstand what the author intends, use the Oxford comma. If its presence contributes to a potential misunderstanding, don't use it. If you're not sure, restructure the sentence to eliminate the series in question.
Nobody said writing (or editing) is easy. On the other hand, a well-written book that contributes to the reader's enjoyment or edification is a treasure. A poorly written one that contributes to neither the reader's pleasure nor education is a waste of time.
What do you think?
 |
| Editor Linda Lane has returned to her first love—writing—while still doing occasional editing. Her quick paced, character-driven novels also contain elements of romance, mystery, and thrillers. They You can contact her through her website: LSLaneBooks.com |
I've always championed the Oxford comma, as I think that it causes the least issues of ambiguity. However, I'd never noticed the possibility of a pair of bracketing commas occurring that could be ambiguous - so that's definitely something to watch out for and reword the sentence to avoid. Thanks, Linda!
ReplyDeleteAs I read over Elle's comment, I realized that I didn't clearly identify my pet peeve. Here it is in a nutshell, as she pointed out: ambiguity. While the absence of the Oxford comma certainly leads to some comprehension issues and even at times apparent misinformation, it does have its shortcomings. The greatest of stories can miss the mark when the author does not use punctuation—especially commas—when it's needed and/or uses it excessively. Both mistakes muddy the reader's understanding of our tale. My word to the wise writer: learn the traditional rules of effective punctuation and engage the services of a competent editor who knows them even better than you do. Our goal is reader appeal and the conversion of a curious reader who purchased our book into a fan who can hardly wait until our next one comes out. Thank you for your comment, Elle Carter Neal.
ReplyDeleteI am a diehard oxford comma stickler.
ReplyDeleteI am, too. But I did find the rare occasions when they can create confusion to be enlightening.
DeleteFor fiction, a must per the CMOS. For non-fiction, debatable depending on the style guide being used.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Style guides can be a challenge when clarity is an issue. Sometimes it's best to structure a sentence in such a way that the Oxford comma does not become an issue.
DeleteFor almost all my writing, fiction and nonfiction, I've used the Oxford comma guideline for clarity. And I do wonder about this example you gave, Linda: I thanked my mother, Lady Gaga, and Madonna. I didn't read the sentence as implying that Lady Gaga was the writer's mother. Anyone else find it clear in the meaning?
ReplyDeleteIt creates a possible bracketing comma, in this case. It's more ambiguous if the name is ordinary, like "Sarah" (instead of Lady Gaga). Is Sarah the writer's mother or an extra person being thanked?
DeleteI think most people would probably share your understanding, Maryann. That example of the bracketing comma's potential to create confusion came from the CMOS. While I had never considered that as a problem with the Oxford comma, I do believe it is possible it might confuse some readers.
Delete