Okay, I'm reading this article from the International Journal of
Science Education, and I'm freaking out because it's making bizarre
use of the comma in a list, the likes of which I've never seen before!

Example: "The process of reflection on ideas, we suggest, motivates
students to revisit, test and, reformulate the links and connections
among their ideas..."

So in essence, that's like writing: "I like to drink Coke, Sprite and,
rootbeer."  I find this THOROUGHLY bizarre.  As far as I'm aware, the
correct (and ONLY correct) punctuation would be: "I like to drink
Coke, Sprite, and rootbeer."

But this is not just a typo, as the "X, Y and, Z" form is used
throughout the article.  Also, my colleague was quick to point out
that if this was published in a scientific journal, the copy editors
would never have let it get through with multiple instances of
incorrect punctuation.

So what gives?  Is "X, Y and, Z" grammatically legal?  Maybe it's
legal but just really arcane or archaic?  Perhaps some weird format
embraced in the confines of educational research?  I'd like to see an
authoritative source give the status of this usage, so I don't have to
lose sleep at night over this conundrum!  Thanks very much!

---

Request for Question Clarification by efn-ga on 08 Oct 2004 20:40 PDT

Hi uniace,

"5.46  In a series consisting of three or more elements, the elements
are separated by commas.  When a conjunction joins the last two
elements in a series, a comma is used before the conjunction (see also
par. 5.25):

  Attending the conference were Farmer, Johnson, and Kendrick.

  We have a choice of copper, silver, or gold.

  The owner, the agent, and the tenant were having an acrimonious discussion."

Source:  The University of Chicago Press.  A Manual of Style for
Authors, Editors, and Copywriters.  Twelfth Edition, Revised, 1969. 
p. 113.

You may not find an authority like this saying explicitly that the
comma after the conjunction is wrong, simply because if they cataloged
every goofy thing someone might do in order to prohibit it, they would
never finish the book.  However, one can induce that they would not
approve of the comma since they don't say anything to authorize it and
it does not appear in any of the examples.

I found a few web pages where lesser-known authorities explicitly
disapprove of the practice.

The Grammar Bytes web site says flatly, "Do not use a comma after the
coordinating conjunction."

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/coordinatingconjunction.htm

The Academic Support Center @ American University also says flatly,
"Do not use a comma after a coordinating conjunction."

http://www.american.edu/ocl/asc/writingsupport/comma.htm

Jack Lynch, Associate Professor in the English department of the
Newark campus of Rutgers University, in the entry on commas in his
Guide to Grammar and Style, says the comma after a conjunction "should
be avoided."

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/c.html

This Guide to Grammar and Writing frowns on the comma after the
conjunction in point 2, but less harshly than some of the commenters
here.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

Does this add enough value to the previously posted comments that you
would accept it as an answer to your question?

--efn

---

Clarification of Question by uniace-ga on 08 Oct 2004 22:53 PDT

Hi efn-ga,
Yes, that's great!  I was going to clarify my confusing comment
(below) by saying that I'd accept something authoritative that gave
correct usage (including mentioning how the serial comma is optional
[omitting it may be technically legal, but I still maintain that it's
likely to be confusing!]) but made no mention of the "X, Y and, Z." 
As you said, such could be inferred as meaning that "X, Y and, Z"
would be unacceptable since it is not mentioned in any of the correct
examples.

But you went one step further and even found sources (reliable enough
for me) that point out how "X, Y and, Z" is wrong.  The sources don't
refer specifically to the context of a list in the use of "a comma
after a coordianting conjunction," but they say that it's wrong
period, thus it's safe to conclude that it is wrong in "X, Y and, Z."

Please submit your findings as an answer and I will be happy to
accept!  Now I can lay this to rest and start wondering how in blue
blazes multiple instances of this zany and incorrect usage of the
comma made it into print!

Hi uniace,

Thanks for accepting my proposed answer, which I will copy here so
it's in the Answer space.

"5.46  In a series consisting of three or more elements, the elements
are separated by commas.  When a conjunction joins the last two
elements in a series, a comma is used before the conjunction (see also
par. 5.25):

  Attending the conference were Farmer, Johnson, and Kendrick.

  We have a choice of copper, silver, or gold.

  The owner, the agent, and the tenant were having an acrimonious discussion."

Source:  The University of Chicago Press.  A Manual of Style for
Authors, Editors, and Copywriters.  Twelfth Edition, Revised, 1969. 
p. 113.

You may not find an authority like this saying explicitly that the
comma after the conjunction is wrong, simply because if they cataloged
every goofy thing someone might do in order to prohibit it, they would
never finish the book.  However, one can induce that they would not
approve of the comma since they don't say anything to authorize it and
it does not appear in any of the examples.

I found a few web pages where lesser-known authorities explicitly
disapprove of the practice.

The Grammar Bytes web site says flatly, "Do not use a comma after the
coordinating conjunction."

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/coordinatingconjunction.htm

The Academic Support Center @ American University also says flatly,
"Do not use a comma after a coordinating conjunction."

http://www.american.edu/ocl/asc/writingsupport/comma.htm

Jack Lynch, Associate Professor in the English department of the
Newark campus of Rutgers University, in the entry on commas in his
Guide to Grammar and Style, says the comma after a conjunction "should
be avoided."

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/c.html

This Guide to Grammar and Writing frowns on the comma after the
conjunction in point 2, but less harshly than some of the commenters
here.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

I'll throw in one more because I like the example "You might want to
put a comma after a coordinating conjunction, but, you only need one
before it."  (I'm a sucker for self-reference.)

http://www3.uark.edu/qwct/resources/handouts/33%20Almost%20Everything%20Commas.pdf

As to how it got into print, I'd go with the old reliable explanation:
 human error.

Hoping this answer has contributed to restoring your ability to sleep,

--efn

Went beyond finding standard correct usage and  found specifics on how
the usage in question is wrong.  Thanks!

Just a quick comment: I don't have a degree in English, but I've been
an editor for about 16 years, and I can say that I've never seen the
comma after the "and" in a list. It seems that the use of the "serial
comma," as it's been called, is an option depending on how formal you
want to be, but I've never heard of the comma after the "and."

And I wonder why the copy editors let it run that way (does the rest
of the publication use it that way or was it just that one article?).
It's possible that the article came in very close to printing time,
so, while they really wanted to include it, there wasn't time to do a
proper proofing; or maybe they don't like the author that much and
wanted to make him look bad by passing on his grammatical quirk. (You
may laugh at the latter, but I've seen things like that happen
before.)

FYI, there are two somewhat standard "style guide" references for
editors and writers, "The Chicago Manual of Style" and "The Associated
Press Stylebook" (though I have neither in front of me, and can't seem
to find the latter on Amazon...but there do appear to be various AP
guides, including one for punctuation) that are used pretty often for
these discussions. I'll have to check to see if this odd usage of the
comma is listed.

Good luck getting a "real" answer...

I can't recall ever having seen this "X, Y and, Z" usage before. IMHO,
it goes beyond being substandard to being flat-out wrong. Arcane or
archaic? Not in my highly opinionated view. If I had to pick an 'A'
adjective to describe this, I'd go for abominable.

This strikes me as the kind of error that is sometimes made by a
person who is not a native speaker of English.

The X,Y and, Z is wrong.  It should be either:
"X,Y, and Z" or "X,Y and Z" depending upon what you are trying to say.
 If Y and Z are things that should be together then no comma otherwise
a comma.   Now that is badly phrased so let me give you some examples.

"For dinner I had a salad, ice tea, macaroni and cheese.  "

Since macaroni and cheese are one dish and not really seperable no comma.  

"For dinner I had a salad, ice tea, carrots, and steak."

In this example the carrots and steak are seperable or listed items.

Subtle difference, but the comma never comes after the and.

I like pauses, though. However, I must agree with the above
statements. If I were to read aloud the phrasing of the sentence, I
must necessarily add a pause after the "and," in the usage given.
Since this is not normally the case in the spoken word, I would have
to agree about the egregious use of punctuation. If I wanted a pause,
I'd have used ... <- that.

Don't even get me started about singular verbs and plural nouns having
apostrophes before the s. It's apostrophes, not apostrophe's! It's "He
loves her." not "He love's her". While I'm on this free comment, it's
also all right NOT to use "I" in the sentence, "You need to set it up
for Carol and I." Remove 'Carol and' and see if the sentence still
makes sense. No, it doesn't make one sound more polite or intelligent
when one uses incorrect grammar.

Don't get me wrong; I'm big on slang and such. I just don't think I'll
necessarily buy "coconut's, papaya's and, banana's for you and I."

This is a free comment.

Yes, it's absolutely wrong.

In the very strictest sense, even "X, Y, and Z" is also bad.

Contrary to popular belief, there are strict rules about when a comma
is (or is not) allowed.

A listing comma is used here; it replaces the word "and" in the
sentence for clarity. The preferred usage would be "X, Y and Z"

In answer to the previous comment about "macaroni and cheese":

You're implying the use of "Macaroni and cheese" as a compound noun;
we could argue either way about this particular case. However, when a
compound noun is used in a list, it should be used in exactly the same
way as it would be if there were no "and" present.

e.g. "I enjoy watching Friends, Frasier and Will and Grace"

It would probably be preferable, all other things being even, to put
the compound noun elsewhere in the list for clarity:

e.g. "I enjoy watching Will and Grace, Frasier and Friends"

I should say one final thing, however. The point of good punctuation
is to make your sentences clear. In some cases, it is preferable to
"bend" a rule of grammar to make the sentence clearer. I _really_
don't believe that your example is one of those though!

Can I be a researcher now?

Just a note on the plural mistakes such as: banana's.
In *Dutch* it's correct spelling for plurals of nouns ending with
certain vowels! for example: "foto's" (Dutch for "photos").

But I suspect they are dyslectic and, dyslexic, rather than Dutch and,
bananas like I ;)

dybeck-ga:
Do you have a link to any kind of authoritative source that supports
your claim that "X, Y and Z" is preferred over "X, Y, and Z?"  It
seems to me that the former is much less clear in its meaning.  For
example, one might think that Y and Z are meant to be considered
together, moreso than X and Y.  Or, in your example, "Frasier and Will
and Grace" is confusing.  Is that one show?  Two?  Three?

In addition to my intuitions about that structure being more
confusing, I am unaware of any rule saying that "X, Y and Z" is
preferred over "X, Y, and Z."  In fact, as far as I am aware, the
latter is the standard form.

As evidence, I cite Strunk & White's indispensable "The Elements of
Style."  The second elementary rule of usage they list is as follows:

"2. In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use
a comma after each term except the last.

Thus write,
red, white, and blue
gold, silver, or copper
He opened the letter, read it, and made a note of its contents.

This comma is often referred to as the 'serial' comma.
In the names of business firms the last comma is usually omitted. 
Follow the usage of the individual firm.
Little, Brown and Company
Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette"

They mention nothing about omitting the serial comma, let alone its
omission being the preferred usage.  They also make no mention of the
bizarre "X, Y and, Z" form that started this question.  But I'm glad
to see there's a consensus that that form is flat-out wrong, as I
believed it to be, and that I wasn't just completely out of the loop! 
If someone can find an authoritative statement of the correct usage of
the comma in a list structure that specifies the ONLY correct form(s),
I'll be happy to accept that as an answer.

uniace --

I can't meet the terms of your last comment, because I believe that
there is no single accepted correct usage.  Rather, depending on the
expert one consults, a comma before the last term of a list is either
mandated (e.g., Strunk and White) or incorrect, but tolerated (e.g.,
Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage).

Here's what H.W. Fowler had to say in the Second Edition of his book
(Oxford, 1965):

"The more usual way of punctuating [within enumerations] is {e.g.)
"French, German, Italian and Spanish": the commas between "French" and
"German"  and "German" and "Italian" take the place of "ands";  and
there is no comma after "Italian" , because, with "and", it would be
otiose.  There are, however,
some who favour putting one there, arguing that, since it may
sometimes be needed to avoid ambiguity, it may as well be used always
for the sake of uniformity." (Fowler, at p. 588)

For what it's worth, I have always agreed with Fowler that the comma
in question is incorrect except when necessary for clarity, and I was
surprised to see that Strunk and White take a different view.  I
haven't checked, but I'll bet that the most common "stylebooks" follow
the Fowler model.

markj-ga

Mark,

Unless I have misunderstood, this is not a discussion of the usual
ways in which a comma may be used before the last term of a list. The
comma in uniace's example comes after the 'and'. Surely you agree that
this would not be considered correct usage by any authority.

pink --

I agree with you completely.  I was simply responding to the
questioner's interest in a rule "that specifies the ONLY correct
form(s)" for the use of commas "in a list structure.:  Thanks for
helping me to make that more clear.

markj-ga

Mark, Pink,
Thanks very much for your informative comments.  Sorry about the
confusing comment I made.  I was going to post a clarification that
said I'd accept something authoritative that gave all possible correct
uses, as it seems there are only two:  "X, Y, and Z" and "X, Y and Z."
 If these and only these were listed, then one could infer that "X, Y
and, Z" is incorrect, and that would have been good enough, what with
the consensus here that it's wrong.

Was going to post so one of you could post an answer, but alas, a
bunch of work popped up (had to run several participants for cognitive
psychology experiments), and I didn't get back here until Efn had
posted with just what I would have asked for, and then some.

Thanks everyone for their comments!  Now I'm left to wonder how the
devil this comma craziness made it into a published article in the
first place!

>> Now I'm left to wonder how the devil this comma craziness 
>> made it into a published article in the first place!

Maybe the author was hit on the head and became commatose? :-D

uniace:

In answer to your question about my authoritative source:

I was quoting from memory - but the rule is correct according to "The
Guide to Punctuation" by R. L. Trask. this is a book from 1997, so I
can be confident that the rules therein are contemporary. I should
emphasise again, however, that there will be times where there is a
conflict between the 'correct' punctuation and that which makes the
sentence clearer. Always choose the latter!