When writing formally, one typically provides a list at some point, with descriptions, actions ornouns separated by commas. The Oxford comma — or serial/series comma — comes just beforethe concluding conjunction (i.e. and/or/nor), leading into the final list item. When writing thesentence, “I like apples, oranges and bananas,” including the Oxford comma makes it, “I likeapples, oranges, and bananas.” Many people rely on this comma consistently in their writing.  

However, many styles omit said symbol, especially within the journalism and publishing world.Even Creightonian articles are edited in the Associated Press style, which calls to avoidthe Oxford comma unless exceedingly unclear. 

The divide between pro- and anti-Oxford comma voices proves to be a repeatedlycontroversialtopic, with many vouching fervently for its ability to provide clarity and others stubbornlyopposing its use. Including this symbol is not simply a stylistic choice, though, since the changealters the meaning of a list and either provides or hinders clarity. Therefore, the Oxfordcomma is appropriate, necessary and practical. 

Firstly, the lack of an Oxford comma can make many sentence structures imprecise, and theauthor’s intent becomes elusive. For example, one could write, “We saw my brothers, Jimmy andHenry.” This statement contains no Oxford comma, and the reader cannot distinguish if Jimmyand Henry are listed as the speaker’s brothers or if Jimmy and Henry were seen in addition to thespeaker’s brothers. A multitude of unconveyable articulations cannot be perfectly understoodunless a revision to structure is made or the Oxford comma is included or intentionally omitted. 

Furthermore, the notion of separating each list item with a comma until the last pair isperplexing; why stop there? Initially, reading the listed items would indicate that the last two arecombined into one, as there is no visual aid to quickly discern each entity. It requires more effortto interpret the words that blend without a comma to distinguish them. While seeminglyunimportant, this idea is the greatest argument for the Oxford comma. Many of the claims insupport of the Oxford comma can be applied to vouching not to use it – poorly written sentence structure, most notably. However, the clarification of each item of alist is far more influential in interpretation if the author avoids confusing structure. Even ifomitting the Oxford comma makes a list “less cluttered” or “more concise,” this practicedoesnot explicitly account for a reader’s potential desire to see the items partitioned. 

As previously mentioned, both the inclusion and exclusion of the Oxford comma haveshortcomings. The statement, “John saw the maid, Dorothy, and Sally,” does not clarify whetherthe maid’s name is Dorothy or John saw three separate people. The structure of this sentence isinherently unclear. Considering the provided order, the listing is ineffective in conveying thespeaker’s intended meaning.  

Again, the other side of the argument also asserts a similar idea. Those who oppose utilizing the Oxford comma also believe that unclear lists that can beambiguously interpreted by someone and, even without the final comma, are difficult to read. 

Such excerpts require revision of grammar and structure to resolve ambiguous delivery. 

Consistent grammatical use of the comma guarantees that the reader will not be leftto assume whether the placement or lack of the symbol is intentional. Therefore, including itdoes not truly influence clarity, and the practice allows visual break-up of a list. 

Adversaries of the Oxford comma claim that it clutters the page with too many symbols and canoverwhelm a sentence with an excess of divisions. Such issues are derived from poor writing andgrammar. Alternatives to commas in sentences include using em-dashes (—), includingparentheses or separating sentences. Replacing commas with these methods isinfluenced by style. An adequate writer can avoid confusion by themselves; furthermore,a proficient reader will not be particularly affected by including a singular character. 

Many people with differing opinions assert that the only issues with omitting the Oxford commaarise from poor writing and structure. Yet, the absence of the Oxford comma often yieldssignificantly more clarity issues.  

A reader may be unable to distinguish whether the writer islisting items or intentionally choosing such structure to present an alternative meaning. This isespecially applicable for discussing names, places and unnamed descriptors. 

The Oxford commadistinctly establishes a concise structure that the reader can clearly follow. The only issues thatcome from using this comma are because of the writer’s grammar choices, which a writer canrevise to increase clarity.  

Both extremes in this debate can endlessly provide examples of faultysentence grammar, but leaving out the Oxford comma cannot disconnect the second-to-last listentity with the final one, which is why it is essential.