And/or is an English 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 for the most part exclusive.
The construction has been used in official, legal, and business documents since the mid-19th century, and evidence of broader use appears in the 20th century. It has been criticized as both ugly in style—by many 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 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." Thus,
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:
Criticism
References on English usage strongly criticize the phrase as "ugly" and "Janus-faced". William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, in their classic The Elements of Style–recognized by Time one of the 100 best and most influential non-fiction books written in English since 1923, say and/or is "A device, or shortcut, that damages a sentence and often leads to confusion or ambiguity". Roy H. Copperud, in A Dictionary of Usage and Style, says that the phrase is "Objectionable to many, who regard it as a legalism".
Legal criticism
The phrase has come under criticism in both American and British courts. Judges have called it a "freakish fad", an "accuracy-destroying symbol", and "meaningless". The Kentucky Supreme Court has said it was a "much-condemned conjunctive-disjunctive crutch of sloppy thinkers".</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.
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. Courts called on to interpret it have applied a wide variety of standards, with little agreement.
See also
- Logical conjunction and disjunction
- Comprised of
- Etc.
- ...
- He/she