HELP!!! Modification problem

Question

"The horse suddenly stopped, throwing the rider to the ground."  What does the participle clause/phrase modify?  THANK YOU very much. (P.S. I have come across at least 4 explanations.) I would appreciate a wide variety of views.  That's what's so great about this website.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

"The horse suddenly stopped, throwing the rider to the ground." What does the participle clause/phrase modify? THANK YOU very much. (P.S. I have come across at least 4 explanations.) I would appreciate a wide variety of views.

I see it as clearly adverbial. It describes how the horse stopped.

I suppose one could argue that it is adjectival, describing the horse, but I don't find that argument convincing. It would have more weight if it were reworded as

"Throwing the rider to the ground, the horse suddenly stopped".

Best wishes, Clive

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks a million, Clive.  FYI, I have also heard two other theories.  First, it modifies "The horse suddenly stopped," on the theory that the main clause is the subject of "throwing the rider to the ground." The second theory is that it modifies nothing. The idea is that "throwing the rider to the ground" = another sentence, i .e., "The horse stopped suddently, and (consequently) the rider was thrown to the ground." I think most people would side with your explanation.  Thanks again for answering.

Philip · Answer

I agree with Clive.

Take a look at this thread, Anonymous: Why be anonymous? I think we'd enjoy getting to know you better, and we can do this if you have a name.

CalifJim · Answer

The idea of "modification" is very, very tricky. I'm inclined to agree with those who say that no true modification is occurring at all. The participial phrase is a clause of consequence.

The horse suddenly stopped. Therefore, the rider was thrown to the ground.
The horse suddenly stopped, thereby throwing the rider to the ground.

In what sense does Therefore, the rider was thrown to the ground or thereby throwing the rider to the ground modify The horse suddenly stopped? or stopped? or horse? or suddenly?

To me it's like asking this: What does Then he ate breakfast quickly modify in the text below?

Henry woke up late this morning. Then he ate breakfast quickly.

___

I see a sort of semantic link between pairs of this kind, but whether there is any real modification going on (syntactically) is doubtful.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks so much to the persons who have answered.  CalifJim, you agree with George Curme in his old but great two-volume A GRAMMAR OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: "He mistook me for a friend, (thus) causing me some embarrassment." Professor Curme says "causing me embarrassment" does NOT in any way modify the principal proposition and can itself be replaced by a principal proposition.  I guess something like: He mistook me for a friend, and this caused me great embarrassment.

CalifJim · Answer

Anonymousyou agree with George Curme

LOL! Coincidentally, I have a copy of his Grammar... on my bookshelf, though it must be a thousand years since I've read it -- if I ever read the whole thing at all!

CJ

Clive · Answer

Hi Guys,

I see what you are saying. Interesting idea.

Still, I want to point out the very tight temporal connection between the stopping and the throwing in the original example. I don't really see it as two separate events. I see it as 'the process of throwing began during the process of stopping'.

Compare that to the more apparent gap in Jim's example between the events of waking and of eating.

When do you suppose the 'causing embarrassment' began, relative to the 'mistaking me for a friend'?

Best wishes, Clive

Dimsumexpress · Answer

CalifJimThe idea of "modification" is very, very tricky. I'm inclined to agree with those who say that no true modification is occurring at all. The participial phrase is a clause of consequence.

I am in the same camp. I am not very keen on taking the "modification" approach with particple clause as it can often cause confusion among learners.

Please take a look at the following. Does "forgetting" modify the preceeding sentence or simply describe the sequence of event(s) in the process?

John had left his house in a hurry this morning as he was waking up late for the work, completely forgetting the proposal which he had worked all night on for the presentation at the morning meeting.

CalifJim · Answer

Clive I want to point out the very tight temporal connection between the stopping and the throwing in the original example. I don't really see it as two separate events. I see it as 'the process of throwing began during the process of stopping'.

Random thoughts.

But the question is about modification, not about the separateness or timing of events expressed by the words of the sentence. I'm not convinced that an appeal to the semantic properties of sentence elements solves the problem of "what modifies what".

(1) The wind blew hard and fierce, uprooting several trees.
(2) The wind blew hard and fierce. As a result it uprooted several trees.

It appears to me that traditional grammar says that when you analyze (1), the uprooting part has to modify something. ("It occurs before we see a period, doesn't it?") Conversely, in (2) the uprooting part must not be said to modify anything because it's a separate sentence. ("It occurs after the period that ended the preceding sentence, doesn't it?")

This arbitrary 'rule' about modification when the only difference is the trivial surface feature of division (or not) into two sentences is the central point which bothers me about the whole concept of "modification", especially in the knotty cases of participial constructions. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this focus on the formal properties of sentences, essentially ignoring their semantic properties, is the main point of traditional analysis.

___

I think it's obvious from the following examples that the direction of the causality or the temporal relationships within the sentence (both semantic rather than syntactic features) has nothing to do with the determination of "modification", as traditionally defined.

(3) The horse threw the rider to the ground by stopping suddenly.
(4) The horse suddenly stopped, throwing the rider to the ground.

Presumably in (3) the sudden stopping "modifies" the throwing of the rider, while in (4) the throwing of the rider "modifies" the sudden stopping. But these determinations are based on the syntactic structures -- not on semantic content. If it were based on semantic content, any reasonable person would say that the same element should take the role of modifier in both sentences.

___

Maybe I just don't like the word "modify".

CJ

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Oh dear!

Well, it's certainly simpler to talk about it in terms of 'How did the horse stop?'

Most of my students are still at that level. (Fortunately.

)

Best wishes, Clive

HELP!!! Modification problem

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions