Skip to Content
  • Home
  • About the Bar
  • Mission
  • Forms
  • Sitemap
    • Member Directory
      Last Name:
      First Name:
      Bar Number:
      City:


    • Login
OSB Logo

Oregon State Bar Bulletin — JUNE 2014



The Legal Writer

Avoiding Awkardness:
Parallels in Grammar and Etiquette
By Suzanne E. Rowe

Rules of grammar, like rules of etiquette, avoid awkward situations and promote understanding. Grammar helps us avoid awkwardness and misunderstandings in writing; etiquette avoids awkwardness and misunderstandings at the dinner table.

Let’s say a friend invites you to a small dinner party. Everyone enjoys appetizers in the living room, then you move to the dinner table, which is set with soup bowls. You anticipate the host’s famous minestrone, or maybe the new gazpacho he’s been talking about. But he opens a wine bottle and pours the pinot noir into the soup bowls.

This creates an awkward situation. Are you supposed to use your soup spoon? Or lift your bowl as though it were a stemless wine glass? You’re confused, missing his point. Is he being avant garde? Is he distraught because he just got laid off and doesn’t realize his mistake? You hesitate, looking for a clue from your host and watching to see what the other guests do. If your host had just followed the rules of etiquette, pouring the wine into wine glasses, this awkward situation would never have come up.

That same awkwardness pops up in our writing when we don’t use parallel construction. We tee up the reader for a certain unfolding of events (soup bowl), then change the game (wine). The reader hesitates, looks around the sentence for clues, and eventually figures out what we intend to say. Using proper grammar, though, the awkward situation never comes up.

Grammar 101

Long-time readers with good memories will know that I wrote about parallel construction in December 2007. I carefully explained, “Parallel structure occurs when the elements of a list share the same grammatical structure.” I carefully demonstrated how to locate faulty parallels by lining up the parts of a sentence that provide the list (whether or not enumerated):

The prosecutor - stood from the table - walked toward the jury and - sighed dramatically.

Sadly, that article did not change the world. I still see nonparallel sentences in newspapers, on museum placards and in legal texts. (Did you note the lovely parallelism of that sentence? in newspapers, on museum placards, in legal texts.) Please, let me try again.

In the News

A South African newspaper recently used this quote to draw attention to a lead article: The ANC election manifesto is defensive, unimaginative, and contains few new ideas.

This is a simple example of nonparallel construction, causing me just a moment of hesitation, so it’s a good place to start. The sentence contains two adjectives to describe the African National Congress’s platform: defensive and unimaginative. I naively expected the third item to be another adjective, but no. I was hit with a verb clause: contains few new ideas.

One grammatical solution is to make the third item an adjective: outdated, dull, moribund, bereft of new ideas. Then the sentence is parallel: The ANC election manifesto is defensive, unimaginative and outdated.

Another solution is to give each of the three items its own verb. In the original sentence, the first and third segments have verbs: is defensive and contains few new ideas. Giving the second segment a verb makes the sentence parallel: The ANC election manifesto is defensive, is unimaginative and contains few new ideas.

In the Garden

A world-famous botanical garden contains a fascinating little display on weeds. But the placard contains nonparallel construction, which kept me focused on sentences rather than plants: People create weeds, by introducing plants to places where they wouldn’t normally be. We grow them in our gardens, parks and to improve the urban landscape.

The second sentence states where and why people create weeds, but creates a grammatical mess: We grow them in our gardens, parks and to improve the urban landscape.

Try lining up the three endings:

We grow them in - our gardens - parks - to improve the urban landscape.

Huh?

One easy solution is to create two clauses, one addressing where people grow weeds and another stating why. We grow them in our gardens and parks, primarily to improve the urban landscape. The independent clause states where we grow weeds, and the dependent clause states why. The independent clause is parallel, and the extra information about why we grow weeds is tucked away by itself in the dependent clause where it doesn’t have to be parallel with anything.

Honestly, I can’t remember why growing weeds improves the urban landscape. And therein lies the biggest problem with nonparallel sentences: your reader is distracted by the structure and misses your meaning.

On the Web

Finding mistakes on Wikipedia is so common that I almost left out the following example: The batsman may attempt one run, multiple runs, or elect not to run at all. (I know that the sentence is grammatically incorrect; I leave to others whether it correctly conveys the rules of cricket.)

So, really, what the second part of this sentence says is the batsman multiple runs. Makes no sense, does it?

The structure of the sentence suggests that the reader is about to learn what a batsman may do after hitting the ball that the opposing player has just bowled to him:

The batsman may attempt one run.

The batsman may attempt multiple runs.

The batsman may elect not to run at all.

Aiming for brevity in the single sentence, the writer left out the verb for the batsman attempting multiple runs.

Here’s my favorite fix: The batsman may attempt one run or multiple runs, or the batsman may elect not to run at all. This sentence uses two independent clauses. In the first, the batsman runs; in the second, he doesn’t. Here, structure aids meaning.

In the Museum

A lovely museum has a placard that explains an artist’s innovations: His notion was not only ahead of its time, but also reflected the weight of his artistic integrity.

The pair not only … but also needs to bracket parallel structure. Often, we clumsily bracket a verb here but not there. That’s what happened in the museum’s placard. Once the sentence started out His notion was the items in not only … but also don’t need verbs; was has filled that role.

I first tried to fix this sentence by dropping the second verb, reflected. That didn’t work. (Give it a try. The resulting sentence is absurd: His notion was… the weight of his artistic integrity.)

Next, I tried moving the not only to come before the verb was. That allowed — actually, it required — the part of the sentence after but also to have a verb, so I got to keep reflected.

Here’s the fixed sentence, made parallel by switching around three words (was not only became not only was): His notion not only was ahead of its time, but also reflected the weight of his artistic integrity.

Going back to Grammar 101, the two endings of the sentence have parallel structure and make perfect sense:

His notion - not only was ahead of its time. - but also reflected the weight of his artistic integrity.

Of course, you could just delete the not only … but also construction for a simpler sentence: His notion was ahead of its time and reflected the weight of his artistic integrity.

In Legal Texts

The manuscript of a book I edited recently contained this sentence: The public laws enacted by Congress are published first as slips laws, permanently as session laws, and codified. The sentence provides important ideas, but it’s not parallel.

The sentence explains the three iterations of public laws, and it includes helpful time markers first and permanently. But the last little bit of the sentence, and codified isn’t parallel with as slip law and as session laws.

My suggestion to the author (a wonderful writer who falls into the “too busy” camp with many of us) was to include parallel information in the last part to say what the laws are codified as: The public laws are published as codified statutes. To continue the time markers, I added later. Here’s the final edit: The public laws enacted by Congress are published first as slips laws, permanently as session laws, and later as codified statutes.

In Court

In a case on statutory construction, a court wrote, “[T]here is no occasion to resort to rules of statutory interpretation where the language used by the legislature is plain, unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning.”1 The second half of the sentence is not parallel. For ease, let’s consider it in isolation: The language used by the legislature is plain, unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning.

This example repeats the problem in the first example, back in the newspaper. The first fix back there won’t work here unless you can think of an adjective for conveys a clear and definite meaning. (Admission: I couldn’t, but the editor I live with suggested “concise.” The language used by the legislature is plain, unambiguous and concise. That’s close. But using it would mean deleting the next few paragraphs, of which I am rather fond.)

The second fix works; giving a verb to each of the three ideas requires only the addition of is before unambiguous. Here’s the result: The language used by the legislature is plain, is unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning.

My preference is using two independent clauses. That means inserting and between the two adjectives plain and unambiguous, and providing a subject for the verb conveys. To emphasize the language, I’d use a semi-colon between the two clauses. Here’s my suggestion: The language used by the legislature is plain and unambiguous; the language conveys a clear and definite meaning.

Minimalists among us might argue that there’s no need for both clauses. Language that is plain and unambiguous is by definition clear and able to convey a definite meaning. Thus, the minimalists might argue for just one or the other. They’ve got a good point.

Conclusion

Because lawyers are professional writers, we should be extra careful with our words. Because our readers are busy, we should avoid grammatical situations that make readers hesitate, unsure of our meaning. We should create a more parallel universe.

 

Endnote

1. Davis v. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 750 So. 2d 1225, 1233 (Miss. 1999). 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Suzanne E. Rowe is the James L. and Ilene R. Hershner Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, where she directs the Legal Research and Writing Program. She has been on sabbatical this past semester, discovering that she is incapable of ignoring writing problems wherever she might be.

An archive of  The Legal Writer articles is available here.

© 2014 Suzanne E. Rowe


— return to top
— return to Table of Contents



  • For The Public

      Public Legal Information

    • Public Information Home
    • Legal Information Topics
    • Oregon Juror Guide
    • Submit Ethics Complaint

    • Getting Legal Help

    • Finding The Right Lawyer
    • Hiring A Lawyer
    • Lawyers Fees

    • Client Services

    • Client Assistance Office
    • Client Security Fund
    • Fee Dispute Resolution
    • Public Records Request
    • Locating Attorney Files

    • Unlawful Practice of Law

    • UPL Information
    • UPL FAQ

    • Volunteer Opportunities

    • Public Member Application
  • For Members

    OSB Login

    • Log In To OSB Site
    • Member Account Setup
    • Non-Member Account Setup
    • Reset Password

    OSB Resources

    • Attorney's Marketplace
    • Career Center
    • Events
    • Forms Library
    • Online Resources
    • OSB Group Listings
    • Performance Standards
    • Rules Regulations and Policies
    • Surveys and Research Reports
    • Unclaimed Client Funds
    • Voting Regions and By-City
      County Information

    Fastcase™

    • Log in to Fastcase
    • Overview
    • Scheduled Webinars
    • Inactive Member Subscriptions

    Legal Ethics

    • Legal Ethics Home
    • Find an Ethics Opinion
    • Bulletin Bar Counsel Archive

    Company Administrator

    • Company Administrator Home
    • Company Administrator FAQ
    • Authorization Form

    State Lawyers
    Assistance Committee

    • SLAC Info

    Volunteering

    • Volunteer Opportunities

    Court Information

    • Judicial Vacancies
    • Court Info | Calendars | Jury Info
    • Oregon Attorneys
      in Federal Court
    • Tribal Courts of Oregon

    OSB Publications

    • Bar Bulletin Magazine
    • – Bulletin Archive
    • – Legal Writer Archive
    • Capitol Insider
    • Disciplinary Board Reporter

    PLF Programs

    • (OAAP) Oregon Attorney
      Assistance Program
    • Practice Management Attorneys
    • Malpractice Coverage
  • CLE/Legal Publications

    CLE Seminars

    • CLE Seminars Home
    • Online Seminar Registration
    • General Info/FAQ

    My Account

    • My Content
    • My Events
    • Order History

    Legal Publications

    • Legal Publications Home
    • Log in to BarBooks®
    • BarBooks® FAQ
    • Online Bookstore
    • Legal Pubs Blog
  • Bar Programs

    Diversity & Inclusion

    • Diversity & Inclusion Home
    • Diversity Story Wall
    • D&I Programs
    • ACDI Roster
    • D&I Staff Contacts
    • D&I Links

    Legislative/Public Affairs

    • Legislative Home
    • Committee Contacts
    • Legislative Sessions
    • Staff Contacts
    • Useful Links

    Legal Services Program

    • LSP Home

    Oregon Law Foundation

    • OLF Home
    • Partners in Justice

    Fee Dispute Resolution

    • Fee Dispute Resolution Home

    Pro Bono

    • Pro Bono Home
    • Pro Bono Reporting
    • Volunteer Opportunities

    Lawyer Referral and Information Services

    • RIS Login
    • Summary of Referral and Information Services Programs
    • Lawyer Referral Service Info and Registration Forms
    • Modest Means Program Registration Forms
    • Military Assistance Panel Training Info and Registration Form
    • Problem Solvers Registration Form
    • Lawyer To Lawyer Registration Form

    (LRAP) Loan Repayment Assistance Program

    • LRAP Home
    • LRAP FAQ
    • LRAP Policies
  • Member Groups

    Sections

    • Section Info/Websites
    • Joining Sections
    • CLE Registration Services
    • Standard Section Bylaws (PDF)
    • Leadership Resources
    • Treasurers Tools

    Committees

    • Home
    • Leadership Resources
    • Professionalism Commission
    • Volunteer Opportunities

    House of Delegates

    • HOD Home
    • HOD Resources
    • Meetings
    • Rules (PDF)
    • Roster (PDF)
    • Staff Contacts

    Board of Governors

    • BOG Home
    • Meetings & Agendas
    • Members
    • Liaisons
    • Committees
    • Resources
    • Task Forces

    Oregon New Lawyers Division

    • ONLD Home
    • Law Students
    • Student Loan Repayment
    • Committees
    • Upcoming Events

    Task Forces and Special Committees

    • Task Forces Home

    Volunteer Bars

    • List/Contacts
    • Leadership Resources

    Volunteering

    • Volunteer Opportunities
  • Licensing/Compliance

    Admissions

    • Admissions Home
    • Alternative Admittance
    • Applicants for Admission
    • Admissions Forms
    • Past Bar Exam Results

    Supervised Practice Portfolio Examination

    • SPPE Home

    Licensed Paralegal Program

    • LP Home

    Lawyer Discipline

    • Discipline Home
    • Disciplinary Board Reporter
    • Disciplinary Boards
    • Client Assistance Office
    • (SPRB) State Professional Responsibility Board

    Membership Records

    • Address Changes
    • Good Standing Certificate
    • Request Discipline File Review

    MCLE

    • MCLE Home
    • Program Database
    • Forms
    • Rules (PDF)

    IOLTA Reporting

    • IOLTA Home
    • IOLTA FAQ

    Licensing Fees

    • Licensing Fee FAQ
    • Licensing Fee Payment

    Status Changes

    • Status Changes FAQ
    • Inactive Status Form
    • Retired Status Form
    • Active Pro Bono Status Form
    • Reinstatement Forms
    • Resignation Form A
    • Pending Reinstatements

    Unlawful Practice of Law

    • UPL Information
    • UPL FAQ

    Pro Hac Vice/Arbitration

    • Pro Hac Vice
    • Arbitration

    New Lawyer Mentoring Program

    • New Lawyer Mentoring Program Home

    Professional Liability Fund

    • Professional Liability
      Fund Website
For The Public

Public Information Home
Legal Information Topics
Oregon Juror Guide
Finding The Right Lawyer
Hiring A Lawyer
Lawyers Fees
Client Assistance Office
Public Records Request
Unlawful Practice of Law
Fee Dispute Resolution
Client Security Fund
Volunteer Opportunities
for the Public

For Members

BarBooks®
Bulletin Archive
Career Center
Fastcase™
Judicial Vacancies
Legal Ethics Opinions
OSB Group Listings
OSB Login
OSB Rules & Regs
SLAC Info
Surveys and Reports
Volunteer Opportunities

CLE/Legal Pubs

CLE Seminars Home
Legal Publications Home

Bar Programs

Diversity & Inclusion
Fee Arbitration/Mediation
Legal Services Program
Legislative/Public Affairs
Loan Repayment
Assistance Program

Oregon Law Foundation
Pro Bono

Member Groups

Board of Governors
Committees
House of Delegates
Volunteer Bars
Oregon New
Lawyers Division

OSB Sections
Professionalism
Commission

Volunteer Opportunities

About The Bar

About the Bar
ADA Notice
Contact Info
Copyright Notice
Directions to the Bar
Meeting Room Rentals
Mission Statement
OSB Job Opportunities
Privacy Policy
Staff Directory
Terms of Use

Licensing/Compliance

Admissions
Client Assistance Office
Client Security Fund
IOLTA Reporting
Lawyer Discipline
MCLE
Member Fee FAQ
New Lawyer
Mentoring Program

Professional Liability Fund
Status Changes

Oregon State Bar Center

Phone: (503) 620-0222
Toll-free in Oregon: (800) 452-8260
Facsimile: (503) 684-1366

Building Location:
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Tigard, OR 97224

Mailing Address:
PO Box 231935
Tigard, OR 97281

Oregon State Bar location Map

Copyright ©1997 Oregon State Bar  ®All rights reserved | ADA Notice | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use