View source for And/or

{{Short description|Grammatical conjunction purported to give more information than 'or'}}

'''And/or''' is an English [[Conjunction (grammar)|grammatical conjunction]] used to indicate that ''one, more, or all'' of the cases it connects may occur. It is used as an inclusive ''or'' (as in logic and mathematics), because saying "or" in spoken or written English might be inclusive or [[exclusive or|exclusive]].

The construction has been used in official, [[Legal document|legal]], and business [[Document|documents]] since the mid-19th century, and evidence of broader use appears in the 20th century.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |date=March 2012 |title=and, conj.1, adv., and n.1 |encyclopedia=OED Online |publisher=Oxford University Press |location= |id= |url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/7283?redirectedFrom=and/or |access-date=16 March 2012 |archive-date=26 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230426023105/https://www.oed.com/start;jsessionid=1011B633F38C520B68CF2C5DC6D66D57?authRejection=true&url=%2Fview%2FEntry%2F7283%3FredirectedFrom%3Dand%2For |url-status=live }}</ref> It has been criticized as both ugly in style—by many [[Style guide|style guides]], including the classic ''[[The Elements of Style]]'' (from [[William Strunk, Jr.]] and [[E.B. White]])—and ambiguous in legal documents—by American and British [[Court|courts]].

== Alternatives ==
Two alternatives have been proposed. The first, when used for just two items, is to replace "''x'' and/or ''y''" with "''x'' or ''y'' or both."<ref name="Fowler" /><ref name="Strunk" /><ref name="Chicago" /> The second is to simply choose which of ''and'' or ''or'' to use.<ref name="Chicago" />

== Mutual exclusivity ==
The word ''or'' does not entail mutual exclusivity by itself. The word ''either'' can be used to convey mutual exclusivity. "When using ''either'' as a conjunction, [it can be applied] to more than two elements in a series."<ref>The American Heritage Book of English Usage. [http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/026.html "Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060618100034/http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/026.html|date=June 18, 2006}}{{Who|date=June 2021}} [[bartleby.com]] URL accessed on August 31, 2006.</ref> Thus,{{Blockquote|text="He will eat ''either'' cake, pie, or brownies"}}

appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive. If the function of ''or'' is clear from the context, it is not necessary to use ''either'' as a conjunction:{{Citation needed|date=June 2021}}

{{Blockquote|text=Person 1: You may select ''one item'' for dessert.
Person 2: What are my choices?
Person 1: You may eat cake, pie, or brownies.}}

== Criticism {{anchor|Critic}} ==
References on English usage strongly criticize the phrase as "ugly"<ref name=Fowler>{{cite book|last=Fowler|first=H.W.|title=A dictionary of modern English usage|year=1982|publisher=Clarendon Press|location=Oxford, Eng.|isbn=0-19-869115-7|edition=2nd ed., rev. by Sir Ernest Gowers.}}</ref> and "[[Janus]]-faced".<ref name=Chicago>{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=The Chicago Manual of Style Online |chapter=5.250 |title=Good usage versus common usage |edition=17th |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]]}}</ref> [[William Strunk, Jr.]], and [[E.B. White]], in their classic ''[[The Elements of Style]]''–recognized by ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' one of the 100 best and most influential non-fiction books written in English since 1923,<ref name="Time">{{cite magazine |author=Skarda, Erin |date=August 16, 2011 |title=''Elements of Style'' |url=https://entertainment.time.com/2011/08/30/all-time-100-best-nonfiction-books/slide/elements-of-style-by-strunk-and-white/ |access-date=2014-05-14 |magazine=All-Time 100 Nonfiction Books |publisher=[[Time, Inc.]]}}</ref> say ''and/or'' is "A device, or shortcut, that damages a sentence and often leads to confusion or ambiguity".<ref name=Strunk>{{cite book|last1=Strunk, Jr.|first1=William|last2=White |first2=E. B. |title=Elements of Style|year=1982|publisher=Macmillan|location=New York|isbn=0-02-418190-0|edition=3rd}}</ref> Roy H. Copperud, in ''A Dictionary of Usage and Style'', says that the phrase is "Objectionable to many, who regard it as a legalism".<ref>[[Jane Straus]], Lester Kaufman & Tom Stern, [https://books.google.com/books?id=7jKpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PR22 ''The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation''] (11th ed.), p. 22.</ref>

===Legal criticism===
The phrase has come under criticism in both American and British courts.<ref name=GarnerEssays>{{cite book|last=Bryan A.|first=Garner|title=Garner on Language and Writing: Selected Essays and Speeches of Bryan A. Garner|year=2009|publisher=American Bar Association|isbn=9781616326791|pages=180&ndash;181}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author-link=Robert Megarry|last=Megarry|first=Robert|year=2005|publisher=Hart|location=Oxford|title=A New Miscellany-at-Law|isbn=9781841135540|pages=223&ndash;232}}</ref> Judges have called it a "freakish fad", an "accuracy-destroying symbol", and "meaningless".<ref name=GarnerEssays/> In a [[Wisconsin Supreme Court]] opinion from 1935, Justice [[Chester A. Fowler]] referred to it as "that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus-faced verbal monstrosity, neither word nor phrase, the child of a brain of someone too lazy or too dull to know what he did mean".<ref>In the case of Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Tollefson, 263 N.W. 376 at 377 (1935).</ref> The [[Kentucky Supreme Court]] has said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers".<ref name=GarnerEssays/> Finally, the [[Florida Supreme Court]] has denounced the use of "and/or", stating
<blockquote>...we take our position with that distinguished company of lawyers who have condemned its use. It is one of those inexcusable barbarisms which were sired by indolence and damned by indifference, and has no more place in legal terminology than the vernacular of [[Uncle Remus]] has in [[Holy Writ]].  I am unable to divine how such senseless jargon becomes current.  The coiner of it certainly had no appreciation for terse and concise law English.<ref>Cochrane v. Fla. E. Coast Rwy. Co., 145 So. 217 (1932). ''See also'' Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Florida Practice & Procedure § 6:7 (2011–2012).</ref></blockquote>

Other authorities point out that it is usually quite unambiguous and can be the most efficient way to indicate the inclusive ''or'' in some contexts. Kenneth Adams, lecturer at the [[University of Pennsylvania Law School]], and [[Alan S. Kaye]], professor of linguistics at [[California State University]], write, "It does, after all, have a specific meaning—''X and/or Y'' means ''X or Y or both''." However, the authors state that it should not be used in language of obligation.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/Ambiguity-And-Or.pdf | author = Kenneth A. Adams and Alan S. Kaye | title = Revisiting the ambiguity of "and" and "or" in legal drafting | date = January 23, 2007 | work = [[St. John's Law Review]] | access-date = January 3, 2013 | archive-date = September 10, 2013 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130910192535/http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/Ambiguity-And-Or.pdf | url-status = live }}</ref>

The legal usage authority [[Bryan A. Garner]] stated that use of the term is particularly harmful in legal writing because a bad-faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits them, the ''and'' or the ''or.''<ref>[[Bryan A. Garner|Garner, Bryan A.]] "Looking for words to kill? Start with these." ''Student Lawyer'' 35.1 (2006): 12–14. [[American Bar Association]].</ref> Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47 | author = Roger Shuy | author-link = Roger Shuy | title = Legal uses of and/or…or something | date = April 17, 2008 | work = [[Language Log]] | access-date = April 18, 2008 | archive-date = June 29, 2010 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100629143322/http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47 | url-status = live }} Cited works include David Mellinkoff, ''The Language of the Law'' (Little Brown 1963) and [[Lawrence Solan|Larry Solan]], ''The Language of Judges'' (Chicago 1993).</ref>

==See also==
{{Wiktionary}}
*[[Logical conjunction]] and [[logical disjunction|disjunction]]
*[[Comprised of]]
*[[Etc.]]
*[[...]]
*[[He/she]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:And or}}
[[Category:English phrases]]
[[Category:English grammar]]