On Breaking Parallel Structure

I have written often in this blog about the value of parallel structure in creating fluent, clear, and concise phrasing. Just type the term parallel in the search bar on this page for numerous helpful tips and examples on the topic. 

I have also written about breaking parallel structure to achieve a desired effect in fiction and business writing, and I have shown how great writers like Joan Didion have done so. For another example of breaking parallel structure, simply in the name of plain language, here is a sentence from former US President Barack Obama in a tribute on X to Ethel Kennedy after her death:

Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with a passion for justice, an irrepressible spirit, and a great sense of humor.

If you'd say that sentence seems understandable, I'd agree. But Obama breaks with the parallel convention, which would not have proven as good a sentence. He describes three Kennedy's attributes:

• passion for justice (noun + prepositional phrase)
• irrepressible spirit (adjective + noun)
• great sense of humor (adjective, noun + prepositional phrase)

 Note the inconsistency in the phrasing. Here are three alternative and consistent phrasings based on the context of the original sentence:

1. Noun + Prepositional Phrases: Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with a passion for justice, humanity through an irrepressible spirit, and a sense of humor. 
2. Adjectives + Nouns: Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with passionate justice, an irrepressible spirit, and great humor.  
3. Adjectives, Nouns + Prepositional Phrases: Ethel Kennedy was a dear friend with a deep sense of justice, an irrepressible spirit for humanity, and a great sense of humor. 

I hope you agree with me that example 1 seems robotic and redundant, example 2 nonfluent and confusing, and example 3 overwritten and verbose. Obama's usage, on the other hand, seems ironically parallel, although it technically isn't. The three phrases he chooses are more common speech and, therefore, heartfelt and understandable.

My point: Use parallel structure but know when to break this rule.

 

Writers Must Change Their Language

"Writers are obliged, at some point, to realize that they are involved in a language which they must change." - James Baldwin, "On Language, Race, and the Black Writer" in The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected Writings

Although James Baldwin began his essay with the sentence in the epigraph to assert a cause for racial justice, I would suggest that all writers should heed his advice, from novelists, playwrights, or poets creating an artistic work; to technical writers crafting instructions; to investigators authoring incident reports; to administrators composing policies; to auditors drafting workpapers; to managers positioning proposals; to lawyers finessing court briefings. Language changes, and writers are responsible to effect those changes as reasonably, precisely, and understandably as possible.

Words constantly enter our lexicon thanks to changes in our culture, workplace, and technology. We need new words, or at least word forms, to express novel concepts. As an example, think of smishing, which conveniently refers to a fraudulent text message posing as from a reputable source intended to capture personal information from the receiver. As new words arrive, we must be mindful of how best to use them in terms of their context. We would not want to say we were smished if someone pickpocketed us or scammed us in a three-card monte game. We have other words for those schemes; I would settle for robbed. On the other hand, I can imagine any of us comfortably—and accurately—saying, "She's ghosting her boyfriend for his incessant mansplaining." 

Writers also need to refine existing words to reflect the times they live in. As we moved toward gender-inclusive language, English language writers replaced terms like policeman with police officer and mankind with humankind. Sensitive to pejorative meanings of words, they prefer an inexpensive product to a cheap one, as the former denotes only price while the latter connotes poor quality. Managers might write about a project due date, which seems more neutral than the stress-inducing deadline.

Baldwin's insight about the writer's obligation reminds us that language is fluid, and as writers, we are the architects of its evolution.