Of all the grammar concepts tested on the SAT and ACT, the use of commas around names and titles is perhaps the trickiest because it straddles the line between grammar and meaning. In most cases, correct answers are clear cut, but there are also instances in which the normal guidelines conflict with one another. When that occurs, the goal becomes to produce the cleanest, most logical construction—something that holds true for standardized tests as well as for everyday writing.
Let me start with the fact that the vast majority of SAT and ACT questions testing commas with names and titles are actually testing the unnecessary use of commas. In such cases, the name or title is essential, meaning that commas should not be used. (Presumably this is because back in the Stone Age, when American schools taught grammar, many students were instructed to always set names and titles off with commas, without any consideration of what purpose the punctuation was intended to serve. Indeed, I encounter this problem more frequently in writing from the UK, where grammar instruction is mandated.)
For example, consider the following question:
Credited with the first use of the term “information super highway,” Korean artist, Nam June Paik,worked with a variety of electronic media and is considered the founder of video art.
A. NO CHANGE
B. artist, Nam June Paik
C. artist Nam June Paik
D. artist Nam June Paik,
Because two commas signal non-essential information, we can remove the name and read the sentence without it.
Credited with the first use of the term “information super highway,” Korean artist…worked with a variety of electronic media and is considered the founder of video art.
No, that clearly does not work grammatically. We don’t even need to worry about meaning.
Most questions look like this. If you understand how to answer this example, then you probably don’t need to worry.
On very rare occasions, however, things can get a bit fuzzier. For example, consider the following excerpt from a 2017 ACT passage (Test 2 in the 2024-25 Official Guide). In this case, commas are not actually tested in regard to the name; however, I’m citing the passage here because it perfectly illustrates how certain rules can sometimes take precedence over others.
From shoes to chandelier, Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States blends accuracy with artistic license in one of the most famous paintings in Washington, DC. The artist, Howard Chandler Christy, was born in 1873, long after George Washington presided over the momentous event that in 1787 concluded the Constitutional Convention.
The group portrait, big as a billboard, hangs in the US Capitol building, where it was installed in 1940. Christy’s prior preparations for the work included a visit to Philadelphia to study how the light falls through the windows in Independence Hall.
In the first paragraph, commas can be used around Howard Chandler Christy for a couple of reasons.
First, they are acceptable because the sentence still makes grammatical and logical sense if the name is crossed out: The artist…was born in 1873, long after George Washington presided over the momentous event that in 1787 concluded the Constitutional Convention. The name is simply providing additional information about the artist’s identity.
In addition, the commas are necessary here because the passage is already clearly talking about one specific artist—the one who painted Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.
Without the commas, the name would emphasize that Christy was one artist among many, a meaning that does not make sense here.
At the same time, the commas imply that the name is not essential. But if it is crossed out, then the reference to Christy in the following paragraph comes out of nowhere.
So why are the commas acceptable?
The simplest way to think about it is that commas or no commas, Christy’s name is actually present in the second sentence, and so there is no confusion when it appears again later on. Signaling that a piece of information is grammatically optional, in order to convey a particular meaning, is not the same thing as actually removing that information. (And treating the sentence as if the information were not there and then repeating it afterwards would be incredibly repetitive and clunky.)
So even though the passage is perhaps not as hyper-correct as it could be, it still creates a logical meaning and is easy to follow from a commonsense standpoint.
If you’re looking for a general takeaway from this discussion, I would say this: If you’re not sure whether a piece of information is essential (no commas) or non-essential (two commas), focus primarily on the sentence in which it appears, and worry less about the sentences that follow. As a rule, immediate context is more important than larger context, especially if that gets into issues of how things might get interpreted. That should cover you 99% of the time.
Now, would the ACT or the SAT be so bold as to test commas around a name used the way Christie’s is in the second sentence? Honestly: I can’t say for sure.
I have a decent trove of ACTs, which I consulted pretty thoroughly, and I was unable to find any instances of this usage being tested directly. I could, however, swear I’ve seen it before—and I don’t normally discuss things in my grammar books unless I’ve encountered them on a real test. Plus, my stash of exams is not comprehensive, and the ACT can be unpredictable, so I wouldn’t put it past them.
Also: In recent years, the College Board has hired a number of former ACT writers, so it’s generally safe to assume anything that has shown up on the ACT could show up on the SAT as well. And the fact that this construction was included in a real passage published in the official ACT guide suggests that it’s at least considered acceptable.
Moreover, both the SAT and ACT have included correct commas with names/titles answers that bend the rules of strict accuracy, albeit from a slightly different angle.
From the ACT:
Dorothy West launched her literary journal Challenge in 1934 with just forty dollars. Her goal was to revive the literary boom of the 1920s Harlem Renaissance of which she had been a part.
And from the SAT:
In crafting her fantasy fiction, Nigerian-born British author Helen Oyeyemi has drawn inspiration from the classic nineteenth-century fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. Her 2014 novel Boy, Snow, Bird, for instance, is a complex retelling of the story of Snow White, while her 2019 novel Gingerbread offers a delicious twist on the classic tale of Hansel and Gretel.
In fact, one can reasonably assume that Dorothy West launched just one literary journal in 1934 and that Oyeyemi produced only one novel in 2014 and 2019 each—as is actually the case. As a result, commas should thus be placed around the titles in both questions to indicate that fact. The lack of commas imply that the works referenced were one of many produced at the respective times.
However, the officially correct option is not given. In both instances, the no-comma option is the only grammatically acceptable choice.
Why is a technically wrong construction considered right enough to be used as a correct answer?
Because—and this is where matters of style start to intrude—too many commas can make a sentence sound choppy. It’s the reason people write Alice went to the party with her husband Bob rather than Alice went to the party with her husband, Bob, even though Alice presumably has only one husband. The logical meaning is sufficiently clear that the punctuation is treated as optional.
So the moral of the story is that very, very occasionally, the right answer is merely the best answer rather than the absolutely correct one. In those situations, what counts is whether you can figure out what makes the most sense. Learning grammatical rules is important, of course, but so is developing a sense of when some flexibility is called for.