- 1 day ago
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00:13Hi, I'm Carl Weber. Welcome to Video Aided Instructions English Grammar Series. This
00:00:20is the Parallel Structure Program. Now I know this program deals with English, but let's
00:00:25begin with a little bit of math. Do you know what parallel lines are? They're lines that
00:00:31run in the same direction. Railroad tracks are parallel lines. So are the two side rails
00:00:37of a ladder. Now in geometry, parallel lines are used to make squares and rectangles. In
00:00:44English grammar, we don't use parallel lines, but we do use parallel words and groups of
00:00:50words when constructing sentences. Parallelism refers to using words and groups of words
00:00:57that run in the same direction. In other words, words, phrases, and clauses that have the same
00:01:04grammatical form. As you'll learn in this program, some kinds of sentences require parallelism.
00:01:11We'll look at when and why parallelism is needed, and you'll learn some basic rules that will
00:01:17help you construct parallel words, phrases, and clauses to make your sentences as solid
00:01:23and sturdy as a well-built stepladder.
00:01:31The basic principle of parallelism is fairly simple. Here it is in a nutshell. Parts of a
00:01:38sentence that have similar meanings should be written in grammatically similar forms. Now, this
00:01:45principle is simple, but the specific applications of the principle are varied and somewhat complex.
00:01:52In the rest of this program, we will look at some more specific rules that grow out of this
00:01:56basic principle, and we'll look at many examples of sentences that require parallelism, and look
00:02:03at exactly what this requirement means. Here's our first specific rule that will help you apply
00:02:08the principle of parallelism. When listing two or more things, qualities, or actions, describe them in
00:02:17parallel grammatical forms. One of the most common types of sentences that requires parallelism is one
00:02:25that contains a list. Very often when we're writing English, we have a need to list three, four, or five
00:02:31things in a particular sentence. And since all these items are on the same list, that means that they
00:02:38naturally have similar meanings. Since they have similar meanings and are being listed together, they
00:02:45should be written in grammatically similar forms. In other words, the same grammatical shape ought to be
00:02:51applied to each of the items in the list. When the same grammatical shape isn't applied to each item in
00:02:57the list, then the sentence sounds wrong, and we will have violated the principle of parallelism.
00:03:03Let's take a look at a couple of examples. Read this sentence. America's founders were prepared to risk
00:03:11everything, their property, their reputations, and would even risk death. Now, in this sentence,
00:03:19as you can probably recognize, three things are being listed. After the colon, the three things that are
00:03:25being listed are things that America's founders were prepared to risk. Now, since we have a list of
00:03:31three items here, we have three things that are similar in meaning, and therefore they should be set up
00:03:37in grammatically similar form. Has that been done? Let's look at the three items that are listed in this
00:03:43sentence. First, their property. Second, their reputations. Third, and would even risk death.
00:03:53Now, are all three items written in grammatically similar form? Not really. The first two are written
00:04:00in the same grammatical form. Their property, their reputations. Here we have nouns, property, and
00:04:07reputations, preceded by the possessive pronoun, their. However, the third item is listed in a different
00:04:14form. Would even risk death. Suddenly, a verb has been inserted. Would risk. And this changes the
00:04:21grammatical form. So the three items, even though they have similar meanings, are not being set up in
00:04:27grammatically similar form. Instead, that third item should be changed to match the other two in
00:04:33grammatical form. Since the first two items read their property, their reputations, the third item should
00:04:41read their lives. After all, that's what's being risked. Their property, their reputations, and their lives.
00:04:48Notice that we have to change it from death to lives to make it parallel both in meaning and in
00:04:54grammatical form. So the correct sentence following the principle of parallelism ought to read,
00:05:00America's founders were prepared to risk everything. Their property, their reputations, and their lives.
00:05:07If you want to emphasize the importance of that third item, you could use the adverb even and insert
00:05:14that as well without violating the principle of parallelism. You would simply be emphasizing that
00:05:19this third item in the list is the most important and dramatic of all. And the sentence could read,
00:05:26America's founders were prepared to risk everything. Their property, their reputations, and even their lives.
00:05:33This sentence now fits the principle of parallelism, which applies whenever a sentence contains a list of
00:05:40similar items. Here's another example. A marine recruit is expected to be physically fit, psychologically
00:05:49tough, and mature in his emotions. Now, once again, the sentence contains three items that are similar in
00:05:57meaning. And once again, the principle of parallelism has been violated. The first two items are written in
00:06:04grammatically similar form. Physically fit, psychologically tough. In both of these phrases,
00:06:12we have an adjective, fit and tough, preceded by an adverb. Physically fit, psychologically tough.
00:06:19However, let's look at the third item in the list. Mature in his emotions is written in a different
00:06:25grammatical form. We do have the adjective mature, which describes what a marine recruit is expected to be.
00:06:32But rather than being preceded by an adverb, like physically or psychologically, instead,
00:06:39the adjective mature is being followed by the prepositional phrase in his emotions. Therefore,
00:06:46this third item in the list sounds different from the other two. It isn't set up in the same grammatical
00:06:52form.
00:06:52So once again, the principle of parallelism has been violated. We need to make a change to correct this
00:06:58sentence. How could you do it? Well, there's actually more than one way to correct it. Probably the easiest
00:07:05way to correct the sentence is to change the third item in the list so that it matches the other
00:07:10two.
00:07:11We could, therefore, rewrite that third item so that it contains an adjective preceded by an adverb.
00:07:18Now, if we want to do that, what would be the proper adverb to precede the word mature?
00:07:23Since the meaning of the sentence refers to mature in his emotions, it makes sense that the proper adverb
00:07:30to use would be emotionally. And the sentence would then read, a marine recruit is expected to be
00:07:37physically fit, psychologically tough, and emotionally mature. Now the sentence fits the principle of
00:07:45parallelism. All three items that are being listed are set up in grammatically similar form.
00:07:51Now, in this case, we changed the third item to make it match the other two. We could also change
00:07:57the first two items to make it match the third if we wanted to. But then the sentence would contain
00:08:03longer phrases and would be a little less concise and therefore wouldn't read quite as well. We could do
00:08:10that, however, if we want. The sentence could then read, a marine recruit is expected to be fit in his
00:08:17physique, tough in his psychology, and mature in his emotions. I think you can see the sentence is a
00:08:23little less effective that way. It's more concise and therefore more effective to use the adverb
00:08:29adjective form in all three items in the list. Either way is grammatically correct, however, because
00:08:36either way we would be following the principle of parallelism, which says that when items are being
00:08:42listed, we need to set them up in grammatically similar form. Here's another rule that will help you
00:08:49apply the principle of parallelism. Use parallelism to link related ideas and emphasize the relationships
00:08:58among them. Very often when we write English sentences, we are including two or more ideas in the same
00:09:05sentence that have some close relationship to one another. Sometimes those ideas help to prove or
00:09:13demonstrate the same point. In other cases, the two ideas may have a relationship of contrast, that is,
00:09:19they disagree with one another. In either case, it's desirable to follow the principle of parallelism,
00:09:26that is, to show and emphasize the relationship between the ideas by setting them up in grammatically
00:09:32parallel form. When you do this, your sentences read well and the relationship between the ideas is
00:09:39very clear. The readers of your sentence will immediately see the relationship between the ideas
00:09:44and understand it and will see how the ideas fit together. Here's an example. Love of country is admirable,
00:09:54but today it is necessary to love humanity in general. Now this sentence is not grammatically
00:10:01wrong. That is, it doesn't contain an out and out error. However, it does violate the principle of
00:10:07parallelism and therefore it's not as well written as it ought to be. How does it violate parallelism? Well,
00:10:14remember the rule we just looked at. When we have related ideas in a sentence, it's desirable to use
00:10:20parallelism to link them and to emphasize the relationship between them. This sentence contains
00:10:26two ideas. First, that love of country is admirable. Second, that today it's necessary to love humanity in
00:10:35general. In other words, to love people no matter where they come from. Now, the author of this sentence
00:10:40is setting up a clear relationship between these two ideas. The relationship is one of contrast. Notice that
00:10:47the conjunction but has been used to join these two ideas. The author is trying to say one thing is
00:10:54true,
00:10:55but today something else is also true. So here are two ideas that are closely related and have a contrast
00:11:02to one another and both deal with love of various kinds. So the two ideas are clearly related and yet
00:11:10they
00:11:10haven't been set up in grammatically parallel form. The first clause says love of country is admirable.
00:11:18The second clause doesn't refer to love of humanity. Instead, it changes the grammatical form and says it
00:11:25is necessary to love humanity in general. Therefore, the two clauses are not set up in grammatically similar
00:11:32form. However, it would be easy to rewrite the sentence to make the two clauses parallel or grammatically
00:11:38similar. And when we do this, the sentence becomes much more forceful and the contrast between the two
00:11:45ideas becomes much more clear. Here's how we would rewrite the sentence to follow this principle of
00:11:51parallelism. Love of country is admirable, but today love of humanity is necessary. When we rewrite the sentence
00:12:01this way, the contrast between two kinds of love has been emphasized. Love of country, love of humanity.
00:12:09And we're told that the first kind of love is admirable, but that today the second kind is necessary.
00:12:16So the contrast between the two ideas and the author's point becomes that much more vivid and that much
00:12:22more clear. And that's why parallelism improves the sentence. So remember the rule. When related ideas
00:12:29appear in your sentence, try to follow the principle of parallelism in order to link those ideas and
00:12:35emphasize how they're related to one another. Our third rule, again, is not specifically a grammar rule,
00:12:43but rather a rule that applies as a principle of good writing. When using parallel construction,
00:12:50build to a climax. What does this mean? Well, as we've seen, parallelism is used to link ideas,
00:12:58and it's often used in particular when ideas are being listed. When two, three, four, or more items are
00:13:06being presented in sequence. Now, the basic rule of good writing is that when you're presenting a number
00:13:12of ideas in a sequence, it's best to end with the most interesting, most important, or most dramatic item.
00:13:20If, instead, you end with an item which is less important, less interesting, or less dramatic than the
00:13:26preceding items, suddenly your sentence will sound a little funny. The idea that you're trying to get
00:13:34across will come a little flat, and the reader may even be distracted by the fact that there's been a
00:13:41sudden fall off. Rather than a steady climb in emotion, we have a climb and then a sudden decline,
00:13:48which is very distracting. It can be used for comic effect, but not when you're trying to write a
00:13:54serious sentence. Here's an example of a sentence that violates this rule of building to a climax.
00:14:01Visitors to America's heartland fall in love with the fields of waving grain,
00:14:06the endless skies, and the giant hamburgers. Now, if the author of this sentence was trying
00:14:13to write a humorous essay or make a funny remark, it might work, because the third item in this list,
00:14:19the giant hamburgers, sounds much less grand and exalted and serious than the first two,
00:14:25the fields of waving grain and the endless skies. Rather than building to a climax,
00:14:30this sentence gradually builds and then suddenly falls flat on its face, with the rather comic image
00:14:36of giant hamburgers being thrown in alongside the grandeur of American landscapes. So the author of
00:14:43this sentence has not built to a climax, but instead has fallen down at the last moment, and therefore
00:14:48the sentence sounds rather funny. Now, if you're trying to write humor, then by all means use this
00:14:55technique, because it does create a comic effect. But when you're trying to write a serious sentence,
00:15:00remember this rule. Build to a climax and make the items in your list get gradually
00:15:05more important, more impressive, and more dramatic. And that way you will leave the reader with the
00:15:12most emphatic item, and therefore have the greatest effect on the reader's feelings.
00:15:18Let's try now an exercise that will enable you to test your understanding of the basic rules that
00:15:25we've looked at in this lesson. Turn to your study guide, try your hand at the sample sentences
00:15:30that are given there, and when you're finished, come back to this program, and we'll take a look at
00:15:34those questions together.
00:15:44Now, we gave you five sentences, some of which have errors in parallelism. Your job was to detect
00:15:50whether there's an error in parallelism in the sentence, and if so, figure out how to correct it.
00:15:56Let's take a look at the first example.
00:15:59Just as Darwin revolutionized biology with his theory of evolution, Einstein's theory of relativity
00:16:05revolutionized physics.
00:16:08Now, this sentence demands parallelism because it contains two closely related ideas.
00:16:14Here, the two ideas are related because they describe similar happenings.
00:16:19The first clause, the first half of the sentence, talks about Darwin revolutionizing biology with his
00:16:27theory of evolution, and in the same way, we are told, Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized
00:16:34physics. So, in both clauses, similar revolutionary happenings in a particular branch of science are being
00:16:42described. So, we have closely related ideas which ought to be described in grammatically similar form.
00:16:49Now, has that been done in the sentence the way it's written? The answer is no. The principle of
00:16:55parallelism has been violated. Look at the difference between the two clauses. The first clause says,
00:17:01Darwin revolutionized biology with his theory of evolution. The clause begins with the name of the
00:17:08scientist, Darwin, and it ends with the prepositional phrase with his theory of evolution. The second clause
00:17:18is not set up in the same way. It doesn't begin with Einstein. Instead, it refers to Einstein's theory of
00:17:25relativity, and the clause does not end with a prepositional phrase. To make the two clauses parallel
00:17:32well, would strengthen the sentence by making the relationship between the two ideas that much more
00:17:38clear. Why don't we rewrite the second clause to make it match the first clause grammatically? Just as
00:17:45the first clause begins with the name of the scientist, the second clause should begin with Einstein. The
00:17:52first clause says, Darwin revolutionized biology. Let's make the second clause read, Einstein revolutionized
00:18:00physics. And then we'll end that second clause with a prepositional phrase, just as the first clause ends
00:18:06with a prepositional phrase. So the rewritten sentence, which would follow the principle of parallelism, would
00:18:13read, just as Darwin revolutionized biology with his theory of evolution, Einstein revolutionized physics
00:18:21with his theory of relativity. Notice how the sentence seems clearer and crisper. The ideas and their
00:18:29relationship become that much clearer when the principle of parallelism is followed. Let's take a
00:18:37look at the next example. Coach Jabbar demands three things of his players. Hard work, that they have
00:18:43personal integrity, and self-discipline. Now here we have a list of three things, the three things that
00:18:50coach Jabbar demands of his players. And whenever three or more things are being listed, we want them to be
00:18:57set up in grammatically parallel form. Has that been done here? No, not quite. The first and third items in
00:19:05the list look similar grammatically. Hard work, self-discipline. Here we have nouns preceded by an
00:19:12adjective. Hard work, self-discipline. Self-discipline is a hyphenated word, but in effect it's the same form,
00:19:19an adjective preceding a noun. However, the second item in the list is not set up in the same way.
00:19:26Instead,
00:19:26it's a clause, that they have personal integrity. If we want to make all three items grammatically
00:19:33parallel, we'd like to change that second item so that it matches the first and the third items.
00:19:38And actually, that's easy to do. Remember, the first and third items in this list both consist of an
00:19:44adjective followed by a noun. We can easily change the second item into that same form, adjective followed
00:19:51by noun, simply by using the words, personal integrity. So the corrected sentence would read,
00:19:57Coach Jabbar demands three things of his players, hard work, personal integrity, and self-discipline.
00:20:04Doesn't the sentence sound much crisper and more forceful when it follows the rule of parallelism?
00:20:10I think so. Let's look at the next example. Thrilled by the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill,
00:20:17thousands of prospectors rushed to California, traveling by boat, by covered wagon, and walking.
00:20:25Once again, we have a list of three items in this sentence. And since all three have similar meanings,
00:20:32all three should be set up in grammatically parallel form. But once again, the rule has been violated,
00:20:37which means once again we'll have to make a change to correct the sentence. The three items that are
00:20:43listed are the three ways that prospectors travel to California at the very end of the sentence.
00:20:48By boat, by covered wagon, and walking. Now the first two items are in similar grammatical form.
00:20:56We have the preposition by followed by the mode of transportation, boat, covered wagon. However,
00:21:03the third item in the list is not in the same grammatical form. Rather than beginning with
00:21:08a preposition followed by the mode of transportation, instead we have what's called a gerund, an ing form
00:21:15of the word, walking. That's not the same grammatically, and therefore it doesn't seem to fit with the
00:21:22other two. Parallelism has been violated. What can we do to change that third item so that it's as similar
00:21:28as possible to the other two, so that it begins with the preposition, followed by the mode of
00:21:33transportation. Could we say by walking? Yes, but that doesn't sound quite right. A more common or idiomatic
00:21:43prepositional phrase that describes walking somewhere would be on foot. So that would probably be the best
00:21:50way of rewriting this third item. Notice that the preposition is different. The first two items would have
00:21:56the preposition by, while the third item would have the preposition on, but nonetheless it sounds
00:22:02parallel because in each case you have a preposition followed by the mode of transportation. So one good
00:22:08way of correcting this sentence would be to end it with the phrases by boat, by covered wagon, and on
00:22:15foot.
00:22:16And that would give us the feeling of parallelism that we're looking for by having three items all set
00:22:22up in the same grammatical form, a preposition followed by the mode of transportation. The exact
00:22:28word doesn't always have to be the same as long as the grammatical structure or form is the same. That's
00:22:34what parallelism is all about. Let's look at our next example. Each of these three poets is admired for a
00:22:43different quality. Milton for his grand rhetoric, Shakespeare for his sweeping vision, Chaucer for his simple
00:22:50humanity. Once again, three items have been listed here. Now, have they all been set up in
00:22:57grammatically similar fashion? That is, has the principle of parallelism been followed? Well, the answer
00:23:04is yes. This sentence doesn't contain an error. Let's take a look at how the writer of this sentence was
00:23:09careful to follow the principle of parallelism. He's listing three poets and the quality for which they
00:23:16are admired. And let's look at how each of these phrases was set up and notice how parallelism was
00:23:23maintained. In each case, the phrase begins with the name of the poet, Milton, Shakespeare, Chaucer. And
00:23:31in each case, what follows is a prepositional phrase that describes the quality for which that poet is noted.
00:23:38And in fact, the parallelism goes even further than that. Within the prepositional phrase,
00:23:44the author has been careful to follow the same grammatical setup that is by ending the prepositional
00:23:50phrase with an adjective and a noun. Grand, rhetoric. Sweeping, vision. Simple, humanity. So we have a very
00:24:00strong parallel feeling as we read through these three phrases. And I think you'll find that it's not only
00:24:07very clear, but also sets up the similarities and contrast between the three poets very vividly so that by the
00:24:15time you read the third
00:24:16description, it feels rather satisfying. The way everything clicks into place, almost as when a musical piece ends with a
00:24:25nice chord in which all the tones of the orchestra fit together neatly. The sentence reads clearly and
00:24:33vividly because parallelism has been followed so effectively. So this is the sentence in our exercise
00:24:40that doesn't need any correction. It's perfectly correct as written because the author has been very careful about
00:24:45parallel structure. One more example. I agree with Hong Wei's political views, but his way of expressing them is
00:24:55something I don't agree with. Now this sentence is not really bad, but it is less effective than it could
00:25:02be
00:25:03because it violates the principle of parallelism. Let's take a look at how it could be improved.
00:25:08Here we have two related ideas. They're related by contrast. The first idea differs from the second idea.
00:25:16In the first idea, the author is describing something that he agrees with about Hong Wei,
00:25:21namely his political views. The second clause is describing something the author doesn't agree with,
00:25:27namely the way Hong Wei expresses them. So we have two ideas that are in contrast to one another.
00:25:34The author agrees with one, disagrees with the other. Now the relationship between the ideas and the
00:25:40contrast between them would become much clearer if parallel structure would be used. And again,
00:25:46it's easy to revise the sentence to make that the case. Let's rephrase the second clause so that it
00:25:53matches the first grammatically. The first clause says, I agree with Hong Wei's political views. How would we
00:26:01begin the second clause to make it as similar as possible grammatically? Well, the first clause begins,
00:26:07I agree. Why not begin the second clause with, I disagree. Then the rest of the clause is easy to
00:26:14write. The revised sentence could simply read, I agree with Hong Wei's political views, but I disagree
00:26:21with the way he expresses them. Notice that the sentence is a little more crisp, a little more concise,
00:26:27and the contrast between the two clauses is a little clearer when parallelism has been used.
00:26:34This sentence is a good example of how parallelism goes beyond the strict question of grammatical
00:26:41correctness or incorrectness, and also gets into the realm of writing effective and powerful sentences
00:26:47that convey your ideas clearly and vividly. If you get good at parallelism, you'll find that your writing
00:26:53will improve and people will be more impressed with your ideas because they'll come across that much
00:26:59more crisply. Okay, we've seen that parallelism is necessary when a sentence contains a list of similar
00:27:12items or when it contains ideas that are closely related to one another. Let's talk now about some of
00:27:18the most common errors in parallelism and how to recognize and correct them. Sometimes the best way
00:27:24to recognize problems in parallelism is with your ear. Sentences with parallelism problems will often
00:27:32sound a little funny. With practice, you can recognize when parallelism errors occur in your sentences
00:27:39because they don't sound quite right. Here are some specific examples of what to watch out for.
00:27:47First, avoid mixing words, phrases, and clauses. If you begin a list or a group of related ideas
00:27:56with words, you need to continue them with words. If you begin with phrases, they should all be phrases.
00:28:02If you begin with clauses, then they should all be clauses. Problems arise when writers switch between
00:28:08words and phrases or between phrases and clauses. Let's look at this example and you'll see what I mean.
00:28:15The films of Stanley Kubrick are visually striking, intellectually challenging, and with a strong satiric content.
00:28:23Here again, we have a list of three qualities that characterize the films of Stanley Kubrick.
00:28:29Visually striking, intellectually challenging, and with a strong satiric content.
00:28:35Now, perhaps your ear can tell you that this sentence hasn't been constructed with parallel structure.
00:28:41The three items in the latter part of the sentence aren't set up in similar or parallel grammatical form.
00:28:49The first is a phrase visually striking that consists of an adjective striking preceded by an adverb
00:28:58visually. The second item is similar, intellectually challenging. Once again, we have an adjective
00:29:05challenging preceded by an adverb intellectually. However, the third item is not a similar two-word phrase.
00:29:14Instead, it's a prepositional phrase beginning with the preposition with and ending with the words
00:29:20a strong satiric content. So we have a noun content preceded by two adjectives, strong and satiric.
00:29:28Therefore, we have a two-word phrase, a two-word phrase, and then a prepositional phrase.
00:29:35We violated parallel structure by mixing words, phrases, and clauses incorrectly. To correct this
00:29:43sentence, we would want to change the third item in the list and make it match the other two,
00:29:47by making it a simple two-word phrase consisting of an adjective preceded by an adverb. There are
00:29:53probably a couple of different ways of conveying the same idea and following parallel structure,
00:29:58but here's one way the sentence could read. The films of Stanley Kubrick are visually striking,
00:30:05intellectually challenging, and strongly satiric. Now we have parallel structure because the same
00:30:12kind of two-word phrase has been repeated in each of the three items. Here's another example.
00:30:18The scholarship committee selected Mai Ling because of her academic record and she is an outstanding
00:30:25athlete. Now here we don't have a list, but we do have two closely related ideas. That is, two reasons
00:30:32the scholarship committee selected Mai Ling. The first reason is her academic record and here we have a short
00:30:39phrase consisting of the possessive pronoun her, the adjective academic, and the noun record. However, the
00:30:49second item which is similar, the second idea which is the other reason why the scholarship committee selected
00:30:56her is a clause. She is an outstanding athlete. Remember a clause contains a subject and a verb,
00:31:03and here we have the subject she and the verb is. So we have a phrase matched with a clause
00:31:09and the two just
00:31:10don't match. They aren't parallel to one another. Once again we'll need to rewrite one of these in order to
00:31:16create parallelism and we could create, we could change either one. Let's change the second one and
00:31:23turn it into a similar phrase, similar to her academic record. Again there's probably more than one way of
00:31:31writing this, but here's one way of correcting the sentence that would make it parallel. The scholarship
00:31:37committee selected Mai Ling because of her academic record and her athletic accomplishments. Now both phrases
00:31:46are simply phrases, neither one is a clause and we haven't mixed and matched unmatching parts. Instead,
00:31:54the two ideas are set up in grammatically parallel form and now the sentence sounds right. Here's another
00:32:01hint as to what to look for to avoid an error in parallelism. Avoid mixing gerunds and infinitives.
00:32:10actions are often described using either the gerund form of a verb or the infinitive form of the verb.
00:32:18The gerund form of a verb ends in ing and a gerund can often be used basically as a noun
00:32:25describing a
00:32:26particular kind of action. The infinitive form of the verb is the simple or base form of the verb. It
00:32:36infinitive form of a verb can also be used more or less as a noun to describe a kind of
00:32:42action. So both
00:32:43gerunds and infinitives can be used in a similar way in a sentence, but they sound different. They are
00:32:50grammatically not parallel and therefore to mix them with one another in a list or when similar ideas are
00:32:57being presented would create a parallelism error. Here's an example. My favorite outdoor activities are camping,
00:33:06fishing, and to hike. Perhaps your ear can pick up on the parallelism error here. Three activities are being
00:33:14listed here. The first two are described by using the gerund form of the verb, the ing form, camping, fishing.
00:33:23In both
00:33:24cases, we've taken the verb to camp or to fish, added ing at the end, and it becomes a gerund,
00:33:31which we can treat as a
00:33:32noun, a name of a particular kind of activity. However, the third item in the list has been described not
00:33:39using a gerund, but using an infinitive, the base form of the verb, in this case with the word to
00:33:45in
00:33:46front of it. Now to hike can be used as a noun and therefore it's correct in and of itself,
00:33:53but it's being
00:33:53mixed and matched incorrectly here, matching an infinitive with two gerunds and therefore we violated
00:34:01the principle of parallelism and that's why the sentence sounds a little weird. The easy way to
00:34:07correct it would be to change that third item in the list so that it's also a gerund and the
00:34:12sentence
00:34:12could then read, my favorite outdoor activities are camping, fishing, and hiking. Here's another tip
00:34:21as to what to watch out for to avoid a parallelism error. Avoid mixing active verbs and passive verbs.
00:34:31Now active and passive verbs can both express similar ideas, but they are grammatically different.
00:34:38Most sentences are written with active verbs. In an active verb, the subject of the verb is the one who
00:34:45is doing the action. When a passive verb is used, the subject of the verb receives the action.
00:34:52So for example, if I say, I cut my leg, I'm using an active verb because the subject of the
00:35:00verb cut
00:35:01is I. I am the one doing the action. On the other hand, if I set up that same idea
00:35:06using a passive verb,
00:35:07I might say, my leg was cut. Notice the difference. My leg is the subject of the verb and it
00:35:15is receiving
00:35:15the action of being cut. That's the difference between an active verb and a passive verb. Now,
00:35:21both active verbs and passive verbs are perfectly correct. And depending on what idea you're trying
00:35:27to convey, you may want to choose one or the other in a particular sentence. However, it's generally not
00:35:33a good idea to mix active and passive verbs in the same sentence. And in particular, when you're
00:35:39describing ideas that are similar, related, or parallel to one another, you want to avoid mixing
00:35:46active and passive verbs. The result, if you do mix them, would be a sentence that doesn't sound right.
00:35:52There will be a lack of parallelism and the reader will think, there's something a little odd about
00:35:58this sentence, even if the reader can't identify it grammatically. Let's take a look at this example.
00:36:05When making an apple pie, first slice the apples. Then they should be mixed with sugar and lemon juice.
00:36:13Now here, two actions that are part of the process of making an apple pie are being described. The
00:36:19slicing of the apples and then the mixing of the apples with sugar and lemon juice. The problem is
00:36:24that the first verb here is an active verb, slice the apples, in which you, the actor, are doing the
00:36:32action,
00:36:32you're slicing. But in the second clause, the verb is set up in passive form. They should be mixed with
00:36:39sugar and lemon juice. They, the subject of the verb, is the apples, and they are passively receiving
00:36:47the action of being mixed. So in this sentence, we've mixed more than just apples, sugar, and lemon juice.
00:36:53We've mixed active and passive verbs. And that's why the sentence doesn't sound quite right.
00:36:57To correct this sentence, you'd want to make both verbs parallel. And generally speaking, when
00:37:04all things are equal, it's usually better to use an active verb rather than a passive verb. So my
00:37:12recommendation for correcting this sentence would be to change the second clause so that it contains an
00:37:19active rather than a passive verb. Making the two verbs match would give us a sentence that reads like this.
00:37:26When making an apple pie, first slice the apples, then mix them with sugar and lemon juice.
00:37:32Notice how the sentence becomes a little more crisp, a little more concise, and also a little clearer when
00:37:39the two verbs in the sentence are made to match, when both are active rather than having one active and
00:37:45one passive. And here's one more tip that will help you avoid a common error in parallelism.
00:37:52Sentence elements linked with the coordinating conjunctions, either or, neither nor, and not
00:37:59only but also, should be grammatically parallel. Now, you remember that conjunctions are words,
00:38:06usually short words, that link other things in the sentence. Sometimes they can link words, sometimes phrases,
00:38:14sometimes clauses. One particular type of conjunction is the coordinating conjunction,
00:38:20which actually consists of two words. The two words in a coordinating conjunction are always used
00:38:26together to link different parts of the sentence. And when coordinating conjunctions are used,
00:38:33what follows each of those words should be grammatically parallel. So whenever you say either
00:38:38either or, what follows either should be grammatically similar to what follows or. In the same way,
00:38:45whenever you use neither, what follows neither should be grammatically similar to what follows
00:38:51nor. And again, when you say not only, what follows that grammatically should be grammatically similar
00:38:58to what follows but also. Let's take a look at a sentence that contains one of these coordinating
00:39:04conjunctions and see how the rule applies. Some scientists believe that dinosaurs resembled birds,
00:39:11not only in their physical structure, but also their social habits. Now, at first glance,
00:39:17this sentence might seem okay. But if you listen to it carefully, you might hear that parallelism has been
00:39:24subtly violated. Here's why. We're using the coordinating conjunction, not only, but also. And remember our
00:39:32rule, what follows each of those conjunctions needs to be the same grammatically. Let's check and see if it is.
00:39:38First, we have not only. What follows that are the words in their physical structure. Now, this is a
00:39:45prepositional phrase beginning with the preposition in, ending with the noun structure and containing the
00:39:52possessive pronoun there and the adjective physical in between, in their physical structure. Okay,
00:39:58then we have the conjunction, but also. And what follows that is their social habits. What do you
00:40:06notice that's different? Well, what's missing here is the preposition in. Because this is not a
00:40:12prepositional phrase, parallelism hasn't been followed. It's very close. Their social habits is
00:40:19quite similar to their physical structure. But because the preposition has been omitted, we don't have a
00:40:25prepositional phrase. And so what follows each part of the coordinating conjunction is not exactly the
00:40:32same grammatically. And that's why a careful reader will notice or at least hear that parallelism has
00:40:39been subtly violated. Luckily, it's easy to correct this error simply by inserting the preposition in
00:40:46into that second phrase after the coordinating conjunction, but also. And then the expectation
00:40:52that we will have parallel structure will be nicely satisfied and the sentence will sound good and
00:40:58sturdy the way it ought to. The correct sentence would then read, some scientists believe that dinosaurs
00:41:04resembled birds, not only in their physical structure, but also in their social habits.
00:41:11Now, there is one other way in which you could correct this sentence. That would be by moving the
00:41:16preposition in so that it preceded the coordinating conjunction. And then what follows each part of
00:41:23the coordinating conjunction would be the same grammatically. Let's take a look at how the sentence
00:41:28might then read. Some scientists believe that dinosaurs resembled birds in not only their physical
00:41:35structure, but also their social habits. Now, notice that what follows the two parts of the
00:41:41coordinating conjunction is the same in each case, their physical structure, their social habits.
00:41:48We've moved the preposition in so that it encompasses both. And that would be another perfectly correct way
00:41:54of changing this sentence. So you have your choice as to whether to insert the preposition in in each phrase
00:42:01or move it so that it's not necessary to have it in either phrase. That's completely up to you and
00:42:07is a
00:42:07matter of your own year or taste for writing. The most important thing, however, is to make sure that what
00:42:13follows each part of the coordinating conjunction is exactly the same grammatically. Otherwise, you will
00:42:20have violated the principle of parallelism. So whenever you find yourself writing a sentence that contains one of
00:42:26these coordinating conjunctions, it's worthwhile to pause, go back, reread the sentence, and consciously make certain that
00:42:34you've created parallel grammatical structures after each part of the coordinating conjunction. It's a very common
00:42:41writing error, but one that's easy to avoid now that you know the rule. Let's turn to the study guide.
00:42:48We've provided you with an
00:42:50exercise that will give you a chance to test your understanding of the rules we've just talked about.
00:43:03Our first sentence contains a list of three activities that were done on a vacation,
00:43:09but you'll notice that the principle of parallelism has been violated. Let's see how we could correct this
00:43:14sentence. We spent our days in Saint Petersburg touring historic churches, magnificent art museums,
00:43:21and admiring ornate palaces. Okay, three activities are being listed here, and let's look at how each
00:43:28one is described grammatically. Touring historic churches, magnificent art museums, and admiring ornate
00:43:35palaces. Of these three items, one, two, and three, which ones are similar? Well, the first and the third seem
00:43:42to be
00:43:42similar, don't they? In each case, the phrase begins with a gerund form of a verb, touring and admiring,
00:43:50followed by the things that were toured and admired, the historic churches, the ornate palaces. The second item,
00:43:57however, is in a different grammatical form. Here we have magnificent art museums describing what was visited,
00:44:04but with no gerund form verb preceding it. We have a couple of different ways that we could correct this
00:44:11sentence.
00:44:11One way of correcting it would be to change item two so that it resembles the other two
00:44:16grammatically. So, for example, we could rewrite the sentence to read as follows. We spent our days in
00:44:24Saint Petersburg touring historic churches, visiting magnificent art museums, and admiring ornate palaces.
00:44:32That would be one perfectly good way of correcting the sentence. Another way of correcting it would be
00:44:37to eliminate the ing, the gerund form of the verb, from our third item. And what would then happen,
00:44:46you'll notice, is that the ing gerund verb from the first item would apply to all three. All three items
00:44:54would then be parallel, but in a different form. The sentence could then read as follows, and listen
00:44:59closely and hear how the parallelism works. We spent our days in Saint Petersburg touring historic churches,
00:45:07magnificent art museums, and ornate palaces. Now, the ing verb touring applies to all three things,
00:45:15and what follows touring are three parallel phrases describing three places that were toured, which
00:45:21is also a perfectly correct way of making the sentence parallel. So notice that the principle of
00:45:27parallelism doesn't tell you exactly how you must write a sentence. Often there's more than one way of
00:45:33following the principle. It's up to you which path you choose. Either of the two possible corrections
00:45:40would be perfectly all right, and you should consider yourself correct if you wrote the sentence in
00:45:45either of those ways. The only thing that we know is wrong is the way the sentence is originally written,
00:45:51where we've mixed phrases that don't match and therefore violated parallelism. Here's our next example.
00:45:59The doctors moved quickly to wash the wound, disinfect it, and applying a sterile dressing.
00:46:06Do you recognize the rule that we violated here? Remember our rule not to mix gerunds and infinitives.
00:46:13Here we have three different actions being described, the washing, the disinfecting,
00:46:17and the applying of a sterile dressing. The third one, applying, is being described with a gerund,
00:46:23the ing verb, but the other two are described with the base or infinitive form of the verb. The easiest
00:46:30way to correct this is to make all three into infinitives, and the sentence would then correctly read,
00:46:36the doctors moved quickly to wash the wound, disinfect it, and apply a sterile dressing. That way,
00:46:43all three actions are described using the infinitive form of the verb, and parallelism has been maintained.
00:46:51Let's look at the next sentence. The hardwood floors in the old house were stripped, sanded,
00:46:57stained, and sealed with varnish. Does this sentence sound all right to you? Actually,
00:47:03it is perfectly correct. Parallelism has been maintained here. The list of actions that are being
00:47:09described as things that were done to the hardwood floors in the house, all those actions are being
00:47:14described using the same form of verb, stripped, sanded, stained, and sealed. The last item, we've
00:47:21added the prepositional phrase with varnish, which is necessary to complete the meaning, but the feeling
00:47:27of parallelism is not lost. So this sentence is perfectly correct. This is one that doesn't need any
00:47:33changing in order to create that feeling of parallelism. Next example. In 1968, the Democratic Convention
00:47:43was held in Chicago, and the Republicans held their convention in Miami. Now, what's wrong with this
00:47:49sentence? Well, the problem is a subtle one. Here we have two actions being described that are quite
00:47:54similar or parallel related to one another. However, the first one is described using a passive verb,
00:48:01and the second one using an active verb. Notice the first clause, the Democratic Convention
00:48:06was held in Chicago. Here we have the subject of the action of the verb, the Democratic Convention,
00:48:14passively receiving the action of being held. However, the similar action described in the second
00:48:20clause is described using the active verb. Here, the subject of the verb Republicans is actively
00:48:27conducting the action or performing the action of holding the convention. So to correct this sentence,
00:48:33we could go either way. We could make both verbs passive or both active. If we made them both
00:48:39passive, then the sentence would read, in 1968, the Democratic Convention was held in Chicago,
00:48:45and the Republican Convention was held in Miami. Or we could make them both active, in which case the
00:48:51sentence would read, in 1968, the Democrats held their convention in Chicago, and the Republicans held their
00:48:58convention in Miami. Either correction would be perfectly okay. It's your choice as to whether
00:49:04to use a passive verb or an active verb. The only real mistake is to mix and match both kinds
00:49:10of verbs
00:49:11in the same sentence. That's when we have a problem with parallelism. And our next example,
00:49:18either the snowstorm must stop within the next two hours, or the town festival will have to be postponed.
00:49:25Here we don't have a parallelism problem. We have a second sentence in this exercise that's perfectly correct.
00:49:31We're using coordinated conjunctions here, either, or, and what follows should be as
00:49:37grammatically similar as possible. And what follows in both cases is a clause, and since the two are
00:49:45roughly similar grammatically, the feeling of parallelism is not violated. What follows either is,
00:49:51the snowstorm must stop within the next two hours, that's a clause, and what follows or is, the town
00:49:58festival will have to be postponed, another clause. The two are basically similar in form, and therefore
00:50:04the sentence sounds perfectly parallel. Remember that what follows the two parts of a coordinating
00:50:10conjunction must be similar grammatically in order for parallelism to be maintained. This sentence follows
00:50:16that rule, and therefore it's correct, doesn't need any changing.
00:50:26Well, so far we've looked at some of the basic rules about using parallelism correctly. In this lesson,
00:50:32we're going to scale some of the heights and get into one of the more difficult aspects of parallelism,
00:50:37using ellipsis. Now, ellipsis is when certain words are omitted from a sentence. Ellipsis is used to avoid
00:50:47needless repetition. Now, when a word or a group of words is used more than once in the same sentence,
00:50:54the word or group of words may sometimes be omitted, but this must be done correctly.
00:51:00Now, in parallel constructions, repeated words may be omitted after one use, provided the omitted words
00:51:08are the same words and they can be understood quickly and easily. What does this mean? Well,
00:51:15it means that when you're setting up a sentence with parallel constructions, so you have different
00:51:20parts of the sentence set up in the same grammatical form, rather than repeat all the same words each time
00:51:27you use the parallel construction, you may omit them. However, it has to be done in accordance with
00:51:33this rule that the omitted words are the same words and can be understood quickly and easily. To test
00:51:40whether you're using ellipsis correctly, you need to reinsert the same omitted words and make sure the
00:51:48sentence makes sense. If it does, and if the missing words can be understood quickly and easily,
00:51:55then the sentence is okay and you've used ellipsis correctly. Otherwise, you need to rewrite the
00:52:02sentence. Let's take a look at a couple of examples that may make this rule a little more clear.
00:52:08Here's a sentence in which ellipsis has been used correctly. Labor has agreed to cooperate with
00:52:15management and management with labor. Okay, here we have a sentence that has two closely related ideas.
00:52:23Labor has agreed to cooperate with management and the same is being done in reverse by management with labor.
00:52:29Two closely related ideas which are being set up in parallel form. However, in order to save space and to
00:52:37avoid unnecessary repetition, the author has left out some of the words from the second example of the
00:52:44parallel construction. In other words, the author of this sentence is employing ellipsis. After all,
00:52:50if you think about it, the sentence when fully filled out, if the ellipsis were eliminated and the
00:52:56omitted words were reinserted, the sentence would read, labor has agreed to cooperate with management
00:53:02and management has agreed to cooperate with labor. That's what the sentence is saying and when we fill out
00:53:09the parallelism and plug the omitted words back in to the second half of the sentence, we see that we
00:53:16have
00:53:16parallel structures. The two halves of the sentence are written in exactly the same grammatical form.
00:53:23Now, notice that when we reinserted the omitted words into the second half of the sentence,
00:53:29it did make sense. It was grammatically clear and understandable and I think that when the words
00:53:35are omitted, the sentence can still be understood quickly and easily. Therefore, this sentence passes the
00:53:42test. It is a correct use of ellipsis because when the same omitted words are reinserted into the
00:53:48sentence, the sentence makes sense and when they are taken out, it can still be easily and quickly
00:53:54understood. So, this is an example of good ellipsis. Labor has agreed to cooperate with management and
00:54:01management with labor. The omitted words from the second half of the sentence still leave the sentence
00:54:07quite clear and exactly the same words can be reinserted and the sentence makes sense. Here's
00:54:14another example of a sentence containing ellipsis. Without pleasure, life is intolerable. Without purpose,
00:54:22meaningless. This sentence has been written to be very pithy, very concise. It's a short kind of
00:54:29philosophical statement and one of the ways the author has made this sentence pithy and concise is by using
00:54:35ellipsis. He has left out some words from the second half of the sentence. Once again, we have two clauses
00:54:42set up in parallel fashion, but in order to avoid repeating the same words, the author has omitted
00:54:48certain words from the second half of the sentence. Let's test to see if ellipsis has been done correctly
00:54:54here. Remember that our test is to insert exactly the same omitted words and make sure that the sentence
00:55:01makes sense once those words have been inserted. Let's try that and see if the sentence makes sense.
00:55:08Without pleasure, life is intolerable. Without purpose, life is meaningless. The words that were omitted from
00:55:16the second half of the sentence were life is. When we reinsert exactly those same words into the second
00:55:22half of the sentence, it does make sense. And I think the sentence is clear and easy to understand
00:55:28without them. Therefore, once again, this sentence passes the ellipsis test. We've got two parts of the
00:55:35sentence with parallel construction, and the author is using ellipsis to make the sentence that much more
00:55:41pithy, concise, and short. And it's quite effective the way it's been done. And when we apply the test of
00:55:49reinserting the omitted words, the sentence still makes sense. So this is a perfectly correct use of ellipsis.
00:55:56Now, once again, to test ellipsis, you want to mentally complete all the clauses in the sentence and make sure
00:56:03that they're logically and grammatically parallel. If not, you have to revise the sentence to either fix the
00:56:10parallelism or rewrite it to eliminate the use of ellipsis. That is, simply fill in the idea so that the
00:56:17sentence makes sense.
00:56:18It's very easy to make mistakes with ellipsis, as we'll see in a couple of examples now. Here's a sentence
00:56:24where the author is trying to use ellipsis to avoid repeating words. But when we try to apply the test,
00:56:30we see that it doesn't really work. For generations, fishing boats have and do navigate the waters of
00:56:38Chesapeake Bay. Okay, we understand what the author is trying to say. He's trying to say that fishing boats
00:56:45have navigated the waters of Chesapeake Bay for generations, and they still do that today. So there
00:56:51are two parallel ideas being described here. And they could have been written out in parallel structure
00:56:57clauses. Instead, however, the author is trying to use ellipsis to make the sentence shorter by leaving
00:57:04out the repeated words. However, does he pass the test of correct ellipsis? To test that, we have to plug
00:57:10in the same words that have been omitted and make sure that the sentence makes sense. Now, in the second
00:57:17clause here, we are told fishing boats do navigate the waters of Chesapeake Bay. That's the complete clause.
00:57:24When we try to insert the same words into the first half, suddenly the sentence doesn't really work. For
00:57:30generations, fishing boats have navigate or do have navigate. You see, when you try to insert those
00:57:38words do navigate into the first part of the sentence, we see it doesn't really work. The reason
00:57:44being that the same words don't work in the two clauses. Remember that with the helping verb have,
00:57:51you need to use the past participle form of the verb navigate, namely navigated. So the sentence, the first
00:57:59clause here would have to read fishing boats have navigated the waters of Chesapeake Bay. So the
00:58:05inserting the same omitted word navigate doesn't work in that first clause. And that's an example of how
00:58:12ellipsis can go wrong. Ellipsis only works when the exact same word has been omitted as appears elsewhere
00:58:18in the sentence. In this case, when you try to insert that same word navigate, the sentence doesn't make sense
00:58:24grammatically. And that's why you can't really use ellipsis in this way. To correct the sentence, you
00:58:30would have to rewrite it to eliminate the ellipsis. One way of doing that would be to simply flesh out
00:58:36both clauses. And then the sentence would read something like this. For generations, fishing boats
00:58:42have navigated the waters of Chesapeake Bay, and they still do navigate the waters of Chesapeake Bay.
00:58:48Now this is rather long and awkward, and that's why the author wanted to use ellipsis in the first
00:58:54place. He realized that writing out both of those clauses would create a sentence with a lot of
00:59:00repetition. Unfortunately, the way he did the ellipsis didn't really work. A better alternative would
00:59:06probably be to greatly shorten the second clause so that the idea comes across without using incorrect
00:59:13ellipsis. So a better way to write this sentence would probably be something like this. For generations,
00:59:19fishing boats have navigated the waters of Chesapeake Bay, and they still do. By changing the sentence
00:59:27altogether so that there's no attempt at ellipsis, but instead we simply have two different verbs being
00:59:32used to describe the past and the present activity in Chesapeake Bay, the sentence is now clear and the
00:59:39incorrect ellipsis has been eliminated. Very often when you've got an ellipsis problem, you simply have
00:59:45to start from scratch in effect and retool the sentence altogether to avoid the problem. Here's another
00:59:52example. No true warm water fish could exist in the Arctic and certainly could not thrive there.
01:00:02Okay, again two parallel ideas are being described. No true warm water fish could exist in the Arctic,
01:00:10which makes sense because the waters in the Arctic would be cold, and then in our second idea warm water
01:00:16fish certainly could not thrive there. Okay, so far so good, but the author has tried to use ellipsis in
01:00:23the
01:00:23second clause in order to avoid repeating the words warm water fish. However, here's the problem. When we
01:00:30reinsert those omitted words into the second clause, suddenly it doesn't make sense. Here's why.
01:00:36Remember the rule is you have to reinsert the exact same words. The sentence would then read,
01:00:41no true warm water fish could exist in the Arctic and no true warm water fish certainly could not thrive
01:00:48there. Notice what's happened to the logic. We're saying that no warm water fish could not thrive there.
01:00:55The two negatives in that second clause create an explosion. The sentence no longer makes sense.
01:01:03The author is trying to say that a warm water fish could not thrive there, but the words omitted from
01:01:08the first clause are no true warm water fish. So it doesn't pass the ellipsis test. You have to be
01:01:15able
01:01:15to reinsert exactly the same words and have it make sense. So therefore the ellipsis doesn't work here,
01:01:21and what you have to do is go back to the drawing board and really rewrite the sentence. One way
01:01:26of
01:01:26doing it, for example, might be no true warm water fish could exist in the Arctic and a warm water
01:01:33fish
01:01:33certainly could not thrive there. Once again, this is rather repetitious and lengthy and probably not the
01:01:40best way of correcting the sentence. So you might want to retool it even more and get rid of the
01:01:47no with
01:01:47which the sentence now begins and rewrite the sentence something like this. A true warm water fish
01:01:53could not exist in the Arctic and certainly could not thrive there. By making it a true warm water fish,
01:01:59now we've got words that could be inserted into that second clause and make sense. So now we've set up
01:02:06the
01:02:06sentence with an ellipsis which does work. So remember, whenever you find yourself using an ellipsis,
01:02:12omitting a few words in order to save space in the sentence, make sure that the way you've written
01:02:18the sentence is such that the exact same words from one clause can be inserted in the other clause and
01:02:24still make sense. If not, you need to rethink the way you've written the sentence and either eliminate
01:02:30the ellipsis or make it correct. It's a rather tricky and subtle rule of correct writing in English,
01:02:36but a very important one and one of the fine points in using parallelism correctly.
01:02:44Okay, let's take a look at an exercise that will give you a chance to test this rather subtle and
01:02:49difficult but important skill.
01:02:59In our first sentence, the author is trying to use a very simple form of ellipsis,
01:03:04and yet he's gotten it wrong, which shows just how tricky ellipsis can be.
01:03:08Let's think about the different ideas the author is trying to convey here.
01:03:13In accordance with the First Amendment to the Constitution, no state has or may enact a law
01:03:19establishing an official state religion. Okay, the author is talking about the First Amendment to the
01:03:25Constitution and is saying that as a result, two things have happened. One is that no state has enacted a
01:03:32law
01:03:32establishing an official state religion, and second, no state may enact such a law. Okay, but rather than
01:03:40repeat the verb enact, the author is trying to use ellipsis to eliminate the First Enact. And so he has
01:03:46written, no state has or may enact a law establishing an official state religion. But remember the test.
01:03:53You need to be able to insert the exact same word that you've omitted from elsewhere in the sentence,
01:03:59plug it in and have the sentence make sense. Now the word that was omitted is enact. We see it
01:04:05right
01:04:05here in the sentence. When we try plugging it in, how does the sentence read? No state has enact or
01:04:11may
01:04:11enact a law establishing an official state religion. Now we see the problem that with the helping verb has,
01:04:18we need the past participle enacted. And therefore, when we try to reinsert the omitted word enact, we see that
01:04:27the
01:04:28sentence doesn't really make sense. Remember that the word that you omit when you use ellipsis must be
01:04:33exactly the same in both places. So that doesn't work in this case. Probably the simplest way to correct
01:04:39the sentence would simply be to break down, go ahead and insert the word enacted. And the sentence will
01:04:47be a little longer, but not really much longer, and will certainly be grammatically correct. So the sentence
01:04:53would then read, in accordance with the First Amendment to the Constitution, no state has enacted
01:04:58or may enact a law establishing an official state religion. This is a correct way of writing the
01:05:05sentence, and it eliminates the erroneous attempt at ellipsis. Our next example. Many scientists agree about the
01:05:15causes of global warming, fewer about the best ways to combat it. Here again, we have two parallel ideas. The
01:05:24first clause says many scientists agree about the causes of global warming. The second clause says that
01:05:30fewer scientists agree about the best ways to combat it. Now, the way I just said it spells out or
01:05:37fleshes
01:05:38out both clauses at full length. Perfectly understandable, but it's a little bit wordy. So the author of this version
01:05:44has tried to use ellipsis to shorten the sentence somewhat. Has he done the ellipsis correctly? Well,
01:05:52let's apply our test. We should be able to take the same words from the first clause, which were omitted
01:05:57in the second clause, and insert them into that second clause and have the sentence make sense. Now,
01:06:04what are the words that were omitted from the second clause? The words that were omitted are
01:06:11scientists agree. When we take those words from the first clause and insert them back into the second
01:06:16clause, does it read correctly? Many scientists agree about the causes of global warming. Fewer scientists
01:06:23agree about the best ways to combat it. Yes, it does make sense. It does read well, and the parallelism
01:06:30works.
01:06:31Therefore, the ellipsis, as done in this sentence, is perfectly correct. The author has simply not
01:06:36repeated the words scientists agree, has left them out. The resulting sentence is clear and easy to
01:06:42understand, and when we plug the exact same words back in, it all hangs together. Therefore, it passes
01:06:48the ellipsis test. It's perfectly correct, and this sentence doesn't need any fixing. Next example,
01:06:56baseball pitcher Cy Young's lifetime record of 511 victories has never been challenged and probably
01:07:04never will. The author is saying two things about Cy Young's record. It has never been challenged and
01:07:11probably never will be challenged. Now, rather than repeat the word challenge, the author is trying to
01:07:17use ellipsis here. But what happens when we try to plug the same verb in? We see that the sentence
01:07:23doesn't really work. Baseball pitcher Cy Young's lifetime record of 511 victories has never been
01:07:29challenged and probably never will been challenged. You can see that doesn't sound right. The second
01:07:37clause here would demand the wording and probably never will be challenged, which is different from
01:07:43been challenged. So, since we can't insert exactly the same words into that second part of the sentence,
01:07:50we see that the ellipsis rule has been violated. And therefore, you'd have to correct the sentence
01:07:56by spelling out that complete verb and make the sentence read, baseball pitcher Cy Young's lifetime record
01:08:02of 511 victories has never been challenged and probably never will be challenged. There's no way around
01:08:09it. You can't use ellipsis here because you can't omit exactly the same words. Instead, they are different
01:08:14words and they have to be spelled out. Next example, as global trade increased, manufactured goods began to
01:08:23flow from north to south, raw materials from south to north. Once again, two closely related ideas talking about
01:08:31the flows of global trade. Now, certain words were omitted from the second clause just to save space and
01:08:40avoid needless repetition. The first clause says, manufactured goods began to flow from north to south.
01:08:46Those words began to flow are omitted from the second clause. When we insert those exact same words in the
01:08:54second clause, does it make sense? Raw materials began to flow from south to north. Yes, it does. So, this
01:09:01passes the ellipsis rule. When you insert the omitted words, the sentence still makes sense and reads
01:09:07properly and when they're omitted, the thing is clear and easy to understand. So, once again, this is a
01:09:13sentence that has used ellipsis correctly and doesn't need any fixing. And our last example, the main legal
01:09:22barrier to an improved school system has been eliminated and the economic obstacles reduced.
01:09:30Let's use the same test. From the second clause here, the author has left out a couple of words, hoping
01:09:36to save space and make the sentence sound less repetitious. When we pick up the exact same words
01:09:41from the previous clause and insert them in the second clause, does it sound right? Does it make sense?
01:09:47Here's how it would then read. The main legal barrier to an improved school system has been eliminated
01:09:53and the economic obstacles has been reduced. Okay, when we reinsert the helping verbs, has been,
01:10:01which were left out or omitted from the second clause, we see that they don't quite work. The reason is
01:10:07that
01:10:07the subject of the first clause, barrier, is singular, but the subject of the second clause, obstacles,
01:10:14is plural. And therefore, the helping verb, has been, doesn't work. We have to use have been instead.
01:10:23Therefore, we can't use ellipsis here because the exact same words can't be reinserted and make a
01:10:28correct sentence. Instead, this sentence has to be fixed by spelling out that second verb and therefore
01:10:34making the sentence a little less concise but more correct grammatically. The sentence would then read,
01:10:40the main legal barrier to an improved school system has been eliminated and the economic obstacles have
01:10:46been reduced. So this is a sentence where ellipsis isn't really practical because we simply need
01:10:53different verbs to make the two clauses correct.
01:11:01Well, now you're an expert on the subject of parallel structure. Actually, if you find this a
01:11:07particularly challenging aspect of writing in English, don't feel bad. Many native English writers
01:11:14and speakers have difficulty with this. And in fact, you'll probably find, if you read carefully in
01:11:19newspapers and magazines, a number of cases where professional writers make mistakes about parallel
01:11:25structure because it can be rather tricky. In fact, when we get into the realm of parallel structure, as you've
01:11:31seen,
01:11:32we're moving beyond simple grammatical correctness into areas where topics such as logic and clarity
01:11:39become involved. Therefore, to use parallelism effectively, you really need to do more than just
01:11:45follow a couple of basic grammatical rules. Instead, you really need to think about what you're saying,
01:11:51to look at the relationships among the ideas that you're expressing in your sentences,
01:11:56and then make sure that the grammar mirrors and reflects those relationships clearly. If you do
01:12:03that and you think carefully about how the grammatical structure and the relationship among the ideas, how
01:12:10those things fit together, then you'll probably find that you can use parallel structure very effectively
01:12:16and even powerfully in your writing. Thanks for watching this program, and I'll look forward to seeing
01:12:22you out there for other programs in the Video Aided Instruction English Grammar Series.
Comments