Why avoid
the em dash?
Choose a dependable sentence structure.
Name the relationship between ideas. Use each choice to make the intended meaning explicit.
By Adam Frick · First draft
I avoid the em dash because the mark can signal too many different relationships. A writer may use the same mark for an explanation, an interruption, an afterthought or an abrupt change. I prefer wording that tells the reader which relationship the writer intends.
This preference follows from my manifesto for Effective English. A language shared by people with different first languages needs dependable signals. Personal habits should not make the reader’s task harder.
The LemonGrad figures attributed to Ethnologue’s 2022 edition imply nearly three non-native speakers per native speaker. My preference for dependable signals follows from that shared audience. I regard the em dash as a “wild west” punctuation mark. The problem is the breadth of the permitted functions and the scope for individual judgement. A flexible mark can become a substitute for deciding how the sentence should work.
1. Broad conventions leave broad choices.
Style guides do give instructions for dashes. The MLA Style Center describes em dashes used to set off a portion of a sentence in a way similar to parentheses. The Australian Government Style Manual prefers spaced en dashes for additional material and notes that other guides use em dashes.
Those instructions establish conventions within a particular style. The existence of a convention does not mean that the mark identifies one precise relationship between ideas. The same visible signal can introduce an interruption, a sudden change or additional information.
For teaching, I want a learner to understand what a choice means and when the choice helps the reader. An instruction to use a dash for emphasis leaves a large decision unexplained. What deserves emphasis and how does the additional material relate to the main claim? In view of that range of functions, my objection concerns the lack of a simple, narrow function that I can recommend across ordinary writing. I prefer a structure whose words state the relationship directly.
2. Name a cause or contrast.
The editor postponed publication—the team missed the deadline.
The editor postponed publication because the team missed the deadline.
The revision identifies the missed deadline as the cause. The dash suggests a connection without naming the connection. The writer should use “because” only when the intended meaning supports that explanation.
The draft is shorter—the argument remains difficult to follow.
The draft is shorter. In spite of the reduced length, the argument remains difficult to follow.
The phrase “in spite of the reduced length” names the improvement that has failed to solve the problem. The wording gives the contrast an explicit reference to the preceding observation. The reader can identify both the change and the limitation that remains. A causal relationship differs from a contrast. I want the writing to identify that difference rather than leave the reader to infer the function of the same punctuation mark.
3. Keep added information away from the sentence core.
The committee—which met twice to review the evidence—approved the proposal.
The committee approved the proposal after meeting twice to review the evidence.
The first version is grammatical, but the added information separates the subject from the main verb. The reader meets the committee and must then work through the interruption before reaching the action. The discussion of subject–verb separation by Gopen and Swan explains why the placement of added information matters.
The revision gives the reader the main action immediately. The details follow in an orderly relationship with that action. The same insertion could be marked with commas or parentheses. Merely replacing the dashes would preserve the distance between the subject and verb. The useful revision changes the structure.
The structure of the interruption has experimental support. The 2022 legal-language experiments found that clauses embedded inside other clauses impaired recall more than the other difficult features examined. The experiments tested linguistic features rather than a punctuation ban. My practical conclusion concerns the placement of added material, so replacing a dash with commas cannot by itself resolve the problem.
4. Give important information a complete sentence.
The report needs one change—a clearer account of the evidence.
The report needs a clearer account of the evidence.
The revision states the need without announcing a change first. The sentence becomes more direct because the verb connects with the actual information. If the information needs emphasis, explain why the information matters. A separate sentence can develop the consequence, identify the missing evidence or state the action the reader should take.
A dramatic pause may make a sentence look forceful. The reasoning still needs words. I prefer to give important information a clear grammatical role and enough explanation to support the point.
Review each dash in your own writing.
Find each em dash. Describe the intended function in words. Does the added material explain a cause, name a contrast, qualify a claim or introduce another idea?
Write a revision that expresses that function directly. Keep the subject and main verb together where possible. Give a separate idea a complete sentence. Check that the revised wording preserves the meaning and the intended emphasis.
Do not simply replace the em dash with another punctuation mark. Decide what the sentence means and choose a structure that communicates that meaning effectively. The writer should establish the connection. The reader should be able to recognise the connection. Shared expectations make that agreement possible.
Editor, writer and educator · Effective English