Faulty Parallelism Examples

What is Parallelism, Anyway?

At its core, parallelism in writing means using the same pattern of words to show that two or more ideas have the same level of importance. Think of it like a balanced scale; if you have items on one side, the other side needs comparable items. When we talk about parallel structure, we're referring to using the same grammatical form for elements that are listed or compared. This could mean using all nouns, all verbs (in the same tense or form), all gerunds (-ing words acting as nouns), or all infinitives (to + verb). It's what makes a sentence flow smoothly and sound right to the ear. When it's done well, it adds rhythm and clarity. When it's not, it can sound awkward, confusing, or even unintentionally humorous.

Why Does Parallelism Matter?

Good parallel structure isn't just about sounding fancy; it's crucial for clear communication. When elements in a sentence are parallel, the reader can easily follow the connections between ideas. It helps to emphasize the relationship between those ideas and ensures that the sentence is grammatically sound and easy to understand. Consider a simple list: 'I like to read, to write, and to paint.' Each item is an infinitive phrase, creating a smooth, predictable rhythm. If you were to break that pattern, say 'I like reading, to write, and painting,' it immediately sounds off. The reader has to pause and figure out what's going on. In academic writing, where precision is key, faulty parallelism can undermine your credibility. In professional settings, it can make your proposals, reports, or emails harder to digest, potentially leading to misunderstandings. It's a small detail that has a big impact on how your message is received.

Common Types of Faulty Parallelism

Faulty parallelism often pops up in a few predictable places. Recognizing these patterns is the first step to fixing them. The most common culprits involve lists, comparisons, and correlative conjunctions (like 'either...or' or 'not only...but also').

1. Faulty Parallelism in Lists

This is perhaps the most frequent offender. When you list three or more items, they should all be in the same grammatical form. This applies whether you're listing nouns, verbs, phrases, or clauses.

Here, the list contains a gerund phrase ('surveying customers'), an infinitive phrase ('to analyze the data'), and a noun phrase ('creating a social media campaign'). The grammatical forms don't match, making the sentence clunky. To fix it, all items need to be in the same form. We could make them all gerund phrases:

Or, we could make them all infinitive phrases:

Another common mistake is mixing different types of phrases. For instance, a sentence might list a noun, a verb phrase, and an adjective phrase. The goal is consistency. If you're listing qualities of a good leader, they should all be presented in a parallel way. For example, 'A good leader is decisive, has vision, and is communicative' is faulty because 'decisive' is an adjective, 'has vision' is a verb phrase, and 'is communicative' is an adjective phrase with a linking verb. It should be 'A good leader is decisive, visionary, and communicative' (all adjectives) or 'A good leader decides quickly, has vision, and communicates effectively' (all verb phrases).

2. Faulty Parallelism in Comparisons

When you compare two things using words like 'than' or 'as,' the elements being compared should be grammatically similar. This is where things can get tricky, as the comparison might be implied rather than explicit.

This sentence implies 'My brother's ambition is greater than his friend's ambition.' However, it actually reads as 'My brother's ambition is greater than his friend.' This compares an abstract quality (ambition) to a person (friend), which doesn't make sense. To correct it, we need to compare like with like.

Or, if the context is clear, you can use a possessive pronoun:

Another example: 'She prefers reading novels to be watching movies.' Here, 'reading novels' (a gerund phrase) is being compared to 'to watch movies' (an infinitive phrase). The fix is to make them parallel:

3. Faulty Parallelism with Correlative Conjunctions

Correlative conjunctions are pairs of words that connect equal elements in a sentence. Common pairs include 'either...or,' 'neither...nor,' 'both...and,' 'not only...but also,' and 'whether...or.' The crucial rule here is that whatever follows the first part of the conjunction must be grammatically the same as what follows the second part.

In this sentence, 'not only' is followed by the adjective 'late,' but 'but also' is followed by a full clause ('he forgot his presentation'). This is unbalanced. To fix it, both elements should be clauses, or both should be phrases.

Alternatively, if you want to emphasize the 'he' in both parts, you could structure it like this:

Consider another: 'She is interested in either learning Spanish or to study French.' 'Learning Spanish' is a gerund phrase, while 'to study French' is an infinitive phrase. The fix is straightforward:

4. Faulty Parallelism with Prepositional Phrases

When a sentence uses multiple prepositional phrases to modify the same noun or verb, they should maintain a consistent structure. This is less common than list errors but can still trip writers up.

Here, 'on the table' is a prepositional phrase describing the book's location, while 'about ancient Rome' describes its subject. The structure 'on the table' and 'about ancient Rome' is parallel. However, the sentence structure makes it sound like the book is on the table and about ancient Rome, which is fine. The potential confusion arises if the phrases are meant to describe different aspects of the book or its placement. A clearer phrasing might be:

Or, if the intent is to list two books:

5. Faulty Parallelism with Relative Clauses

Similar to prepositional phrases, when relative clauses (clauses starting with 'who,' 'which,' 'that,' etc.) modify the same noun, they should ideally follow a parallel structure for clarity.

The first relative clause is 'who has experience' (subject + verb phrase). The second is 'that is dedicated to public service' (relative pronoun + linking verb + adjective phrase). The shift from 'who' to 'that' and the structure difference can be jarring. Making them parallel:

Or, if you prefer using 'that' for both:

Tips for Avoiding and Fixing Faulty Parallelism

Catching faulty parallelism requires a keen eye and a systematic approach. Here are some strategies to help you write clear, parallel sentences:

• Read your sentences aloud. Often, awkward phrasing due to faulty parallelism is immediately noticeable when spoken.
• Identify lists or series of items. Ensure each item in the series uses the same grammatical form (e.g., all nouns, all gerunds, all infinitive phrases).
• Check comparisons. Make sure the elements being compared are grammatically equivalent.
• Pay close attention to correlative conjunctions (either/or, not only/but also, etc.). Ensure the elements following each part of the pair are parallel.
• When in doubt, simplify. Break down complex sentences into shorter ones if maintaining parallelism becomes too difficult.
• If you're listing verbs, try to use the same tense and form (e.g., all past tense, all present tense, all participles).
• Consider the 'head' word or phrase. If you have a list of noun phrases, ensure each phrase functions similarly.
• Use a style guide if you're working on a formal document. Many guides offer specific advice on parallel structure.

The Nuance of 'Good Enough' Parallelism

While strict parallelism is generally preferred, especially in formal writing, there are times when minor deviations might be acceptable or even stylistically effective. For instance, sometimes a slight shift in structure can add emphasis or avoid monotony. However, these are advanced techniques and usually require a strong command of grammar and style. For most students and professionals, aiming for clear, consistent parallel structure is the safest and most effective approach. The goal is always clarity and readability. If a sentence sounds awkward or confusing, it's worth re-examining its structure for potential parallelism issues, even if it doesn't fit one of the classic 'faulty' patterns.