1

Is the following sentence parallel?

Globalization causes international goods to be available in different countries, better cultural change, and international trade to be more efficient.

1

Globalization causes [international goods to be available in different countries], [better cultural change], and [international trade to be more efficient].

It looks grammatically okay to me. There are three coordinates (bracketed); the second one is a straightforward NP as object of "causes".

The other two coordinates are a bit tricky since in each one the NP and the non-finite infinitival clause do not form a syntactic constituent, but a sequence of NP as object of "causes" + infinitival clause as catenative complement of "causes", i.e. two separate constituents.

Nevertheless, because the NP object in each case is the semantic subject (though not the syntactic one) of the catenative clause, I think it makes sense to treat the two constituents as forming a coordinate.

  • +1 Btw, there's a question with your name on it, here! – Araucaria May 20 '16 at 12:16
  • Oh, I was just thinking about gapping. Presumably, an alternative analysis could be Globalisation [causes international goods to be available in different countries], [ ___ better cultural change] and [ ___ international trade to be more efficient], where the gaps a coreferential with cause, maybe? – Araucaria May 20 '16 at 12:20
  • @Araucaria Sorry for the delay. I like your suggestion. With the missing verbs being recoverable from the first coordinate, it fits the usual pattern of gapped coordination. One advantage would be that cause/gap plus its complements (an NP object in the 2nd coordinate, and an NP object + catenative clause in the 3rd one) would be contained within the coordinates, so there would be less fragmentation. As long as it was made clear that the NPs international goods and international trade were not the syntactic subjects of the non-finite clauses, but raised objects of cause. – BillJ May 20 '16 at 17:21
0

I don't think so. The second clause bothers me. It needs to be in the form "X to be Y" to match the other two:

Globalization causes international goods to be available in different countries, cultural change to be better, and international trade to be more efficient.

I also dislike the use of 'better', though. Better how? Faster? Perhaps the following will suit your needs:

Globalization causes international goods to be available in different countries, cultural change to be stimulated/accelerated/hastened, and international trade to be more efficient.

0

Globalization causes international goods to be available in different countries, better cultural change, and international trade to be more efficient.

Does your sentence, above, contain parallelism? No, not really. It does contain a list, however. I suggest with a little rewording, you could incorporate parallelism into your list, however. Consider this rewording:

Globalization brings about three things: 1) increased availability of international goods to many countries; 2) better cultural exchange; and 3) more efficient international trade.

In this rewording you have three noun-adjective combinations, which are parallel, one to the other:

  • increased availability

  • better exchange

  • more efficient trade

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.