Apart from the usefulness of the information or the power of
the ideas being presented, what distinguishes good writing from insipid, so-so
writing is parallelism in grammar along with symmetry in sentence construction.
Parallelism and symmetry are actually mutually reinforcing attributes of
exposition; by emphasizing the likeness or similarity between two or more ideas
at both the sentence and paragraph levels, they promote clarity of expression and
make the language more forceful and readable.
But precisely how do we achieve parallelism and symmetry in
our own writing?
To shed some light to this
question, I wrote a four-part essay, “Presenting ideas in parallel,” for my
English-usage column in The Manila Times
in 2006. Part I took up the basic rule for parallel construction: never mix
grammatical forms when presenting similar or related ideas. Part II discussed
another very important parallel construction rule: a parallel structure that
begins with a clause should sustain that pattern all the way. Part III presented
specific applications of the two parallelism rules taken up in Parts I and II.
Finally, Part IV demonstrated how to achieve structural balance for sentences
by using parallel structure for adjectives and adverbs as well as for two or
more grammatical elements serving as complements.
That four-part essay now forms part
of my book Give Your English the Winning Edge (Manila Times Publishing,
486 pages), and parts of that essay have already appeared here in the Forum at
different times. Having seen not just a few violations (and apparent
misunderstandings) of the parallelism rule in media in recent weeks, however, I
decided to post all parts of the essay in full here. I am confident that by taking to heart that essay’s prescriptions for achieving
parallelism, serious students of the writing craft (and the occasional professional media writers who check out this blogspot) will see a dramatic improvement in both their written and spoken
English. (December 8, 2013)
Part I – Presenting ideas in parallel
Parallel construction is one of our
most powerful tools for organizing and presenting ideas. It cannot be overemphasized
that making our sentences grammatically and semantically correct is simply not
enough. We should also ensure that each of their grammatical structures that
are alike in function follows the same pattern. In fact, observance of this
basic stylistic rule very often spells the difference between good and bad
writing.
To give us a better idea of the
power of parallel construction, let us first examine the following simple
sentence: “Alberto likes reading, jogging, and to play computer games.”
We will find that it is
structurally disjointed and does not read well because not all of its serial
elements follow the same pattern. Although the first two elements, “reading”
and “jogging,” are in parallel because both are gerunds (“-ing” noun forms),
the third, “to play computer games,” ruins the parallelism because it is in the
infinitive form (“to” + the verb stem).
One quick way to fix this
structural problem is to put the third element also in gerund form, “playing
computer games,” so that the sentence reads as follows: “Alberto likes reading,
jogging, and playing computer games.” It is now grammatical balanced and no
longer sounds stilted.
Another way for the original
sentence to achieve parallelism is to make all three of its serial elements
take the infinitive form: “Alberto likes to read, to jog, and to play computer
games.” This sentence, of course, can be streamlined even further by using “to”
only once right before the first of the all-infinitive parallel elements:
“Alberto likes to read, jog, and play computer games.”
In actual practice, we have to put
in parallel not only single words or short phrases but much more complicated
grammatical structures such as extended phrases and clauses as well as long
serial lists. However, the basic rule for parallel construction remains the
same: never mix grammatical forms. We
have to choose the most appropriate form for the similar or related ideas, then
stick to the same pattern all the way.
Consider the following sentence
with three extended elements that are not all in parallel:
The chief executive decided to terminate the advertising manager because he rarely managed to come up with the company’s TV commercials on time, approved the publication of several major print advertising with serious grammar errors, and his relations with both his staff and the advertising agencies were very bad.
The first subordinate clause, “he
rarely managed to come up with the company’s TV commercials on time,” is in
parallel with the second subordinate clause, “(he) approved the publication of
several major print advertising with serious grammar errors,” because both of
them are active verb forms using “he” (the advertising manager) as the subject.
However, the third subordinate clause, “his human relations with both his staff
and the advertising agencies were very poor,” disrupts the parallelism because
it is in the passive verb form and takes for its subject not “he” but another
noun form, “his relations with both his staff and the advertising agencies.”
See how much better the sentence
reads when the third element is modified so it becomes parallel with the first
two:
The chief executive decided to terminate the advertising manager because he rarely managed to come up with the company’s TV commercials on time, allowed the publication of several major print advertising with serious grammar errors, and related very badly with both his staff and the advertising agencies.
Note that the three elements are
now all active-voice verb phrases—“rarely managed…”, “allowed the
publication…”, and “related very badly…”—that are perfectly parallel in form.
We will go deeper into the various
ways of achieving parallelism in the next essay. (May 29, 2006)
Part II – Presenting ideas in parallel
As emphasized in Part I of this
essay, the basic rule for parallel construction is to never mix grammatical
forms when presenting similar or related ideas. A sentence that presents two or
more serial elements should stick to the same pattern all throughout—all noun
forms, all gerund forms, all infinitive forms, or all verb forms as the case
may be. When serial elements all take the same form, ideas come across much
more clearly and cohesively.
We will discuss another very
important parallel construction rule this time: A parallel structure that
begins with a clause should sustain that pattern all the way. Recall now that a
clause is a group of words that contains a subject and a predicate (and can
thus function as a sentence in its own right, as in “we should obey the law”),
as opposed to a phrase, which is a group of words that doesn’t have them (and
thus can’t function as a sentence by itself, as in “to obey the law” or
“obeying the law”). When the sentence doesn’t sustain the clause pattern, or
when any of the clauses shifts from the active to the passive voice or the
other way around, the parallelism falls apart. The result is a disjointed
sentence that doesn’t read well.
Take this sentence that contains
three serial grammatical elements: “The English professor told the students
that they should aim for perfect attendance, that they should always do their
assigned homework, and to submit their term papers on time.” The parallelism of
this sentence breaks down because while the first two elements—“they should aim
for perfect attendance” and “they should always do their assigned homework”—are
both clauses, the third element—“to submit their term papers on time”—is not a
clause but an infinitive phrase.
We need to make this third element
also a clause—“they should submit their term papers on time”—so the sentence
can become perfectly parallel and more readable: “The English professor told
the students that they should aim for perfect attendance, that they should do
their assigned homework regularly, and that they should submit their term
papers on time.”
Of course, a more concise but less
emphatic way to construct this serial-clause sentence is to use the imperative
“that they should” only once before the first clause: “The English professor
told the students that they should aim for perfect attendance, do their
assigned homework regularly, and submit their term papers on time.” (Be
forewarned, though, that such streamlining can obscure the meaning in more
complicated constructions.)
The parallel structure of a sentence
with serial clauses can also be ruined when any of the clauses takes a
different voice, say the passive from active: “The president anticipated that
majority of the lower house would welcome the planned Charter change, that most
of the senators would fiercely oppose it, and that a vicious demolition job
would be mounted against it by her political detractors.”
Here, the first two
clauses—“majority of the lower house would welcome the planned charter change”
and “most of the senators would fiercely oppose it”—are in the active voice,
but the third clause—“a vicious demolition job would be mounted against it by
her political detractors”—is in the passive voice, thus disrupting the pattern.
To make the construction parallel
all throughout, we should make the third clause also take the active voice—“her
political detractors would mount a vicious demolition job against it.” This
results in a more forceful sentence: “The president anticipated that majority
of the lower house would welcome the planned charter change, that most of the
senators would fiercely oppose it, and that her political detractors would
mount a vicious demolition job against it.” (June 5, 2006)
--------------
From
the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila
Times, May 29 and June 5, 2006 © 2010 by
the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Part III – Presenting ideas in parallel
We have already taken up the two
basic rules for parallel construction, namely that a sentence that presents two
or more serial elements should stick to the same pattern all throughout, and
that a parallel structure that begins with a clause should sustain that pattern
all the way. We saw that we can build much clearer and more forceful sentences
by consistently observing these rules.
Now we need to refamiliarize
ourselves with four specific applications of these two parallelism rules: (1)
that all of the elements being enumerated in a list should take the same
grammatical form, (2) that elements being compared should take the same
grammatical form, (3) that elements joined by a linking verb or a verb of being
should take the same grammatical form, and (4) that elements joined by a
correlative conjunction should take the same grammatical form.
All elements in a list should have a parallel structure. We can
make our written compositions better organized and more readable by using the
same grammatical form for all the elements we are enumerating in a list. The
elements should all be noun forms, verb forms, infinitive phrases, gerund
phrases, or participial phrases, whichever is most appropriate. When we allow
any of the elements to take a different form, the rhythm of the enumeration is
broken and the reader’s train of thought is needlessly disrupted.
Consider the following
not-so-well-thought-out list:
At present, our club has: (1) no formal charter, (2) subsisting without a long-term organizational goal, (3) a seriously declining membership, (4) a large budgetary deficit, and (5) to collect a large amount of past-due membership fees.
The list looks awfully craggy and
reads very badly for an obvious reason: its elements don’t follow a consistent
grammatical form. Items 1, 3, and 4 are noun phrases, but Item 2 is a verb
phrase in the progressive form and Item 5 is an infinitive phrase.
Now see how smoothly and cohesively
the list reads when its elements all take the same grammatical form, in this
case as verb phrases:
At present, our club: (1) lacks a formal charter, (2) subsists without a long-term organizational goal, (3) suffers from a seriously declining membership, (4) carries a large budgetary deficit, and (5) needs to collect a large amount of past-due membership fees.
Elements being compared should use a parallel structure. In
constructions that use the form “X is better than/more than Y,” we have to make
sure that the elements being compared have the same grammatical structure. Unparallel
(gerund/infinitive): “She enjoys jogging
better than to run.” Parallel
(gerund/gerund): “She enjoys jogging
better than running.”
Elements joined by a linking verb or a verb of being should use a
parallel structure. When we use “is” as a verb of being that links two
elements, we have to make sure that the elements have the same grammatical structure.
Unparallel (infinitive/gerund): “To make
that impossible demand is declaring
open hostilities.”Parallel (infinitive/infinitive): “To make that impossible demand is to declare open hostilities.”
Elements joined by a correlative conjunction should use a parallel
structure. When we use the correlative conjunctions “either . . . or,” “neither . . . nor,” “not only . . . but
also,” “both . . . and . . .”, and “whether . . . or,” we have to make sure
that the elements being correlated have the same grammatical structure.
Unparallel
(gerund/infinitive): “For you to get to Manila on time, we suggest either
taking the morning flight tomorrow or to drive overnight right now.” Parallel
(gerund/gerund): “For you to get to Manila on time, we suggest either taking the morning flight tomorrow or driving overnight right now.”
Unparallel:
“They not only demand very short installment periods but also huge down
payments.” Parallel: “They demand not only very short installment periods but
also huge down payments.” Also parallel: “They not only demand very short
installment periods but also demand huge down payments.”
We will take up some more fine
points about parallelism in Part IV of this essay. (June 12, 2006)
Part IV – Presenting ideas in parallel
We saw in the first three parts of
this essay that the consistent use of parallel structures is the key to more
readable, more forceful, and more polished sentences. We also learned that for
clearer and more cohesive sentences, we should always use parallel structures
when presenting various elements in a list, when comparing elements, when
joining elements with a linking verb or a verb or being, and when joining
elements with correlative conjunctions.
Before winding up our discussions
on parallel construction, we will take up two more techniques for harnessing
parallelism to give structural balance and better rhythm to our sentences. We
will discover that these techniques can dramatically improve our writing and
give it a distinctive sense of style.
Use parallel structure for adjectives and adverbs. We should also
aim for parallel patterns when using adjectives and adverbs in our sentences,
seeking structural balance for them in much the same way as we do for noun
forms, verb forms, infinitives, and gerunds.
Unparallel
construction: “She danced gracefully, with confidence and as if exerting no
effort at all.” Here, we have a stilted sentence because the modifiers of the
verb “danced” have taken different grammatical forms: “gracefully” (adverb),
“with confidence” (adjective introduced by a preposition), and “as if exerting
no effort at all” (adverbial phrase).
Parallel
construction: “She danced gracefully,
confidently, effortlessly.” The consistent adverb/adverb/adverb pattern gives
the sentence a strong sense of unity and drama.
Unparallel
construction: “The gang attempted an audacious bank robbery that was marked
by lightning speed and done in a commando manner.” The sentence reads badly
because the three modifiers of “bank robbery” are grammatically different: “audacious”
(adjective), “marked by lightning speed” (participial phrase), and “done in a
commando manner” (another participial phrase).
Parallel
construction: “The gang attempted an audacious,
lightning-swift, commando-type bank robbery.” The sentence reads much more
forcefully because of its consistent adjective-adjective-adjective pattern for
all of the modifiers of “bank robbery.”
Use parallel structure for several elements serving as complements of a
sentence. For more cohesive and forceful sentences, we should always look
for a suitable common pattern for their complements. Recall that a complement
is an added word or expression that completes the predicate of a sentence. For
instance, in the sentence “They included Albert in their soccer lineup,” the
phrase “in their soccer lineup” is the complement.
Unparallel
construction: “We basked in the kindness of our gracious hosts, walking
leisurely in the benign morning sunshine, and the palm trees would rustle
pleasantly when we napped in the lazy afternoons.” Here, we have a confusing
construction because the three elements serving as complements don’t have a
common grammatical pattern: “the kindness of our hosts” (noun phrase), “walking
leisurely in the benign morning sunshine” (progressive verb form), and “the
palm trees would rustle pleasantly when we napped in the lazy afternoons”
(clause).
Parallel
construction: “We basked in the
kindness of our gracious hosts, in
the benign sunshine during our early morning walks, and in the pleasant rustle of the palm trees
when we napped in the lazy afternoons.” The sentence reads much, much
better this time because the three complements are now all noun phrases in
parallel—“in the kindness of our gracious hosts,” “in the benign morning
sunshine during our early morning walks,” and “in the pleasant rustle of the
palm trees when we napped in the lazy afternoons.” Note that all three have
been made to work as adverbial phrase modifiers of the verb “basked.”
In actual writing, of course, the
need to use parallel structures in our sentences will not always be apparent at
first. As we develop our compositions, however, we should always look for
opportunities for parallel construction, choose the most suitable grammatical
pattern for them, then pursue that pattern consistently. Together with good
grammar, this is actually the great secret to good writing that many of us have
been looking for all along. (June 19, 2011)
--------------
From
the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 12 and 19, 2006 © 2006 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All
rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment