'Plus, ...' or 'Plus ...'

I've a sentence structured as below for a leaflet:

Fill in the survey and you can win x!
Plus, a chance to be entered into a draw to win y!

I typed this sentence and I just naturally added a comma after 'Plus'

Should I?

Solution 1:

It’s a leaflet, not an academic paper, and the style matches the medium. I’d stick with plus and I’d stick with the comma. The comma reinforces the point made by the start of a new sentence that the chance to be entered into a draw is an enticement separate from winning X.

Solution 2:

The root of the confusion here (and why we have two divergent sets of opinions), is that in its current placement, "Plus" can be read as either an adverb or a conjunction, and thus people are offering contradictory examples based on the way they're intuitively interpreting the word.

For example, "additionally" is a multisyllabic adverb, and when a multisyllabic adverb such as "however," "moreover," or "additionally" begins a sentence, they are always offset by a comma. This is not necessarily a suitable example, however, because multisyllabic parts of speech are often punctuated differently from monosyllabic parts of speech, especially in this sort of prefatory use. (More on this in a moment.)

Likewise, in the example where the two sentences are combined -- "Fill in the survey and you can win x, plus a chance to be entered into a draw to win y!" -- "plus" is functioning as a conjunction in that case, and for single-syllable conjunctions such as "and" or "but" we typically do not offset those by commas. Again, this is not necessarily a suitable example because in that example "plus" can only be a conjunction, whereas at the beginning of a sentence, it can be either an adverb or a conjunction. (More on this in a moment.)

(Also, just to quickly address the old misconception: It's fine to begin sentences with conjunctions, and this usage has long been extensive in all degrees of formality. The foolish old myth that one ought not do so has no basis in tradition or grammar, and worse, it's stylistically inept.)

Having identified the source of the confusion, the first question to address is whether there are any benefits to interpreting "plus" as one part of speech or the other. Possible benefits could be semantic, rhetorical, strategic (e.g., some specific marketing strategy, legal strategy, etc), stylistic, etc.

In this case, there is no significant semantic difference between either usage.

Stylistically, you should use a comma to introduce a multisyllabic preface to a sentence (whether it's a few words such as "in spite of this" or just one long word such as "additionally"). Conversely, the general guidance for smoother, less jarring text is that you should not use a comma after such a prefatory word when it only has a single syllable. The rationale is that for a longer prefatory word or phrase, the comma helps make it clear where the preface ends and the main sentence begins, thus making the sentence easier to comprehend. Conversely, when the prefatory word has only a single syllable, it's so short and easy to read that there's no ambiguity, and so a comma would introduce an unnecessary (and hence awkward) pause.

This stylistic consideration is the one that I find most useful in this case -- for most readers, the sentence will read more smoothly without the comma.

Rhetorically, as some people have alluded to, you could argue that including the comma more closely emulates spoken usage. For times when "plus" is spoken as an adverb, this would indeed entail a pause. However, I don't think this is an instance where it's desirable to mimic spoken language. Even when you're writing in an informal context that mirrors speech, text and speech are never identical; if you mirror spoken language too closely, you'll end up with jarring, awkward, unpleasant writing. (For an easy example of this, record a normal spoken conversation and then transcribe it exactly as spoken, with all the pauses, repetitions, changes in direction, etc -- it makes for horrible writing.)

Thus while your context may be informal, there's no real benefit or need to echo speech that closely here -- especially with the trade-off that it slows the cadence of the sentence. Moreover, that usage will only satisfy the minority of readers who subconsciously interpret "plus" as an adverb in that instance. Most readers aren't going to have a subconscious preconception, or will be subconsciously inclined to see the word as a conjunction, and for both of those groups the pause is going to feel inelegant and jarring. (Mind you, these are mostly subconscious effects, but then most of the factors that shape our opinion about a given text are subconscious.)

In spite of this, if you're stuck on the idea of having an adverb offset by a comma as a way of drawing more attention to this sentence as some sort of addendum or bonus, then you're better off picking a longer word or phrase that unambiguously requires a comma. For example: "Better yet, you'll have a chance to win y." OR: "Moreover, you'll have a chance to win y." A substitute such as this will satisfy your desire and prevent your style from seeming garish to others.

And this, of course, brings us back to the old maxim from Strunk and White: “When in doubt, recast the sentence.” If it takes this much effort to figure out the "right way" or the "best way" to phrase something, you're probably better off finding another way to say it.

A final word on whether and how to vary your writing style for different contexts and audiences: There's a common misconception that an "informal" context somehow implies that it's "ungoverned by the rules of good writing" (an attitude which seems to be echoed here). This misconception leads to sloppy writing.

Different media may entail different considerations, but actually, if you don't already have a clear idea of what needs to be varied and more importantly, why, then worrying about this is more likely to lead you into false assumptions and trouble; you'll generally do just fine writing in clear, plain text (which hardly anyone will ever find grounds to object to).

That said, if you're attempting to address the needs of a context that is something other than generic plain text, then the best place to start is by defining the priorities of that audience, and then letting that guide your stylistic decisions.

That's why, for example, the Associated Press style manual fetishizes extreme concision and brevity -- because their number-one priority is to pack in as much information and newsprint as efficiently as possible.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Chicago Manual of Style is obsessed with completeness, thoroughness, and precision, because their number-one priority is to support academic writing that is as accurate as possible.

The Economist's manual of style falls somewhere between AP and Chicgao, with an emphasis on efficiency that's balanced against a desire to also maintain enough formality to sound sober and intelligent, with a bit of reserve, thus reflecting their more highly educated business-and-politics-oriented readership.

Meanwhile, APA Style (the American Psychological Association) is very thorough, explicit, and precise like Chicago style, but it also places a great deal more emphasis on standardized formatting, organization, and hierarchy, because they support not just the needs of academic accuracy but also specifically formatted medical writing that needs to be presented in a consistent, predictable manner for readers who are only skimming or referring to a portion of a document, rather than reading the entire document.

Yet you'll still find that all of these style manuals agree on a great deal, because basic good writing style is pretty universal. And the universal principle is clarity: Whoever your audience may be, how can you most efficiently and faithfully convey your concepts and tone?

So for something like an informal leaflet, if you have a specific stylistic nuance that you want to use, which you know would fall outside the normal guidelines of formal style, and if you can define why that change is a benefit for your target audience, then it's probably a suitable change. The rest of the time, when in doubt, you're better off just sticking to clear, well-ordered writing. (And I have to say that, regrettably, the two example sentences that kick off this question are both quite bad.)

Solution 3:

The second portion isn't a correct sentence, regardless of the "plus" comma issue, so let's address that first. I would suggest

Plus[,] you could win a chance to be entered into a draw to win y!

(If you are really winning a chance to get entered into a drawing, this is fine, but if you are entered in and have a chance of winning, it should be reworded.)

Now, to address the comma. I'm inclined to say don't use the comma with the word plus, but if we substitute "additionally" for "plus"

Additionally, you could win a chance to be entered into a draw to win y!

you would definitely use a comma. Because of that, I would say go ahead and use the comma.

Solution 4:

The second phrase is indeed not a sentence as @Jim says, but given that this is a leaflet and not formal writing, that is just fine. And leave the comma out; if you had merged the two into one sentence, the comma would come before "plus", not after:

Fill in the survey and you can win x, plus a chance to be entered into a draw to win y!