Ambiguous Ing Clause

Question

An investigator works to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance following his return from abroad.

1) Is this sentence ambiguous? Could we interpret it to mean either his return from abroad followed the disappearance or his work to uncover followed his return?

2) When 'follow' is used as above, is it a non-continuous verb? I don't think it could be in the progressive tense.

Thanks

Grammarwannabe · Accepted Answer

It's very ambigious

you could also take it to mean that the son disappeared after he returned from abroad.

The "ing" can be used here

Avangi · Answer

Yes, it's ambiguous.
Yes, "following" is non-continuous. You could substitute "after."

Clive · Answer

Hi,

An investigator works to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance following his return from abroad.

I don't find this ambiguous in terms of grammar.

'His' refers to the closest preceding male, ie the son.

The participle 'continuing' begins an adjectival phrase that describes 'appearance'.

ie The son disappeared after the son returned from abroad.

Any ambiguity arises from the reader wondering if the writer wrote the sentence in a way that correctly conveys his meaning. In other words, the sentence is OK, but is that what the writer really meant?

You might like to consider these revised versions.

eg Following his return from abroad, an investigator works to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance.

eg An investigator works to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance, following his return from abroad.

Best wishes, Clive

Avangi · Answer

Clive Any ambiguity arises from the reader wondering if the writer wrote the sentence in a way that correctly conveys his meaning.

Great point. [Y]

English 1b3 · Answer

I apologize for the paraphrase--as I think your answer may be different now. Here is the original:

A retired military investigator works with a police detective to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance following his return from Iraq.

I feel this may change your answer, Clive (sorry, again).

I also feel that 'following...' is meant to modify the military inveestigator. By the way, it is a synopsis for a movie, so I'm pretty sure the lead character would be the investigator, so I think it may be he who is modified by the ing clause 'following...'.

Avangi · Answer

So now we have threeeligible males.

[Z]

I've assumed from the beginning that it was the son who disappeared following his return from (Iraq).

If it's the military investigator, then Clive's proximity principle truly makes your first example ambiguous.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Well, grammar is grammar, but interpretation or 'feeling' if you wish to call it that is a differemt matter. Obviously, both have to be considered.

With such sentences, if the matter spoken of is important, the listener will typically ask questions.

eg Do you mean . . . ?

Then again, if it were a matter of importance, the speaker might well try to express himself more clearly in the first place.

Clive

English 1b3 · Answer

Would you agree with these:

A retired military investigator works with a police detective to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance which followed his return from Iraq= this clearly means the disappearance followed his return.

Following his return from Iraq, a retired military investigator works with a police detective to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance= this is the other meaning, that he worked following his return.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Would you agree with these:

A retired military investigator works with a police detective to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance which followed his return from Iraq= this clearly means the disappearance followed his return.

Just in terms of grammar, here's how I see this.

It's the police detective's son. (I doubt that this is the writer's intended meaning.)

The son disappeared following the son's return from Iraq.

Following his return from Iraq, a retired military investigator works with a police detective to uncover the truth behind his son's disappearance= this is the other meaning, that he worked following his return.

Just in terms of grammar, here's how I see this.

The investigator worked after the investigator returned fom Iraq.

It's the police detective's son. (Again, I doubt this is the intended meaning.)

In such sentences where 'his' refers not to the last-mentioned male but to an earlier male, it's often better to replace 'his' by a possessive noun.

eg A retired military investigator works with a police detective to uncover the truth behind the investigator's son's disappearance which followed the investigator's return from Iraq.

As you can see, this can become a bit awkward. That's why I said it's often better to reword the sentence, or to rely on the listener to simply interpret the intended meaning if it is obvious from the context. Or, again as mentioned earlier, the listener can just ask questions if he wishes to clarify the meaning.

Clive

English 1b3 · Answer

Thank you for your reply, Clive.

I agree with your analysis. It may be simple to clear up the confusion in conversation. But in writing, the sentence needs to be recast. Horrible synopsis.

Ambiguous Ing Clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions