Participial clause

Question

Hi,I'm trying to derive some temporal relationships between the event described in a participial clause and the one in the main clause.  I basically found two types:1. overlapping (simultaneous)1)  perfective+imperfectiveex1) He came home, talking on the phone.At the time he came home, he was talking on the phone.  The main clause denotes a perfective situation because the verb "come" in this context acts like an achievement(instantaneous) verb.  His coming occupies the whole of the time referred to.  The partcipial clause, in the meantime, is interpreted imperfectively because the time referred to covers only a small part of the time of his talking on the phone.ex2) Being a close friend of Adam's, she was invited to his housewarming party.At the time she was invited, she was a close friend of Adam's.2) imperfective+imperfectiveex1) He was reading a newspaper, sipping a cup of coffee.At the time I saw him this morning, he was reading a newspaper and at the same time, he was sipping a cup of coffee.ex2) They were silent, holding hands.At the time I saw them, they were in state of being silent and holding hands.ex3) He drives an inexpensive car, keeping a low profile.3) imperfective+perfectiveI can't think of an example on this one.4) perfective+perfectiveex1) They often talked long into the evening in his office, arguing about the data and the theories.The event denoted in the participial clause basically elaborates on the talking event that took place.  They're not viewed as two distinct events/activities.  ex2) She walked into the kitchen, yelling at the top of her lungs. She walked and yelled simultaneously.  Two distinct activities.2.  not overlappingI'll deal with this in another post.Is my analysis correct?  I would appreciate your opinions.  Thank you.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

I see your examples differently. In some cases I find that the logical relationship is more prominent than the temporal relationship. I see them all as imperfective + imperfective with the exception of "was invited", in what I labeled sentence 6 below. I would classify them as shown here.

A. Temporal, simultaneous. (while)

1. Progressive imperfective. (continuous actions) (A while B / B while A)

1) He came home, talking on the phone.
2) She walked into the kitchen, yelling at the top of her lungs.
3) He was reading a newspaper, sipping a cup of coffee.

2. Stative imperfective. (A while B / B while A)

4) They were silent, holding hands.

3. Habitual imperfective. ("often") (A while B / B while A)

5) They often talked long into the evening in his office, arguing about the data and the theories.
_____

B. Reason (because)

6) Being a close friend of Adam's, she was invited to his housewarming party.

Because she was a close friend of Adam's, she was invited ....

(stative imperfective + perfective)
_____

C. Result (thereby; thus)

7) He drives an inexpensive car, keeping a low profile.

He drives an inexpensive car; [by doing so / thus], he keeps a low profile.

(habitual imperfective + stative/habitual imperfective)

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Thank you for your answers, CJ. I'm a little confused.

A situation is perfective if the time of the event occupies the whole of the time referred to.

ex1) He arrived at midnight.

ex2) He arrived on Monday.

time referred to: midnight/Monday
time of the situation: time of his arrival

if time referred to=time of the situation Or time referred to>time of the situation
=> perfective

As for example 1, the time of his arrival is exactly equal to the time referred to.

As for example 2, his arrival occupies only a small part of Monday. Hence, time referred to>time of the situation. Hence, it's perfective

ex3) I was still awake at midnight.

Here, time referred to<time of the situation. Therefore, it denotes an imperfective situation.

So, if the situation is presented in totality, as a complete whole, it is perfective. Otherwise, it is imperfective.

ex4) When Kim arrived, we were having lunch.

Here, the time referred to is specified by the adjunct when Kim arrived and at this point our having lunch was in progress, so the main clause is a case of imperctivity. But the question arises as to which aspect the event expressed in the subordinate clause denotes. According to Huddleston, the subordinate clause in ex 4 is perfective and imperfective in the following examples.

ex5) When we were on holiday, Kim came to see us.

ex6) When I was at school, I was friends with Kim.

Why are they imperfective? Is it because the main clause is now served as a point of reference(the time referred to) in determining the aspectuality of the subordinate clause? For example,

time referred to: the time of Kim's arrival
time of the situation: our being on holiday

time referred to<time of the situation Hence, the subordinate clause is imperfective?

I'd really appreciate it if you could shed some light on this.

Jooney · Answer

Hi CJ,

Let me get this straight first.

He came home, talking on the phone.

What does this sentence exactly mean?

1. While he came home, he talked on the phone.
=>It took 20 minutes to get home and he talked on the phone all this time.

2. He came home while he was talking on the phone/While he came home he was talking on the phone.

The talking started before he arrived home and continued afterwards. So this is a situation where I saw him arrive home and at that time he was talking on the phone. Correct?

Isn't it true that the first interpretation is also possible?

She walked into the kitchen, yelling at the top of her lungs.

1. While she walked into the kitchen, she yelled at the top of her lungs.

2. While she waked into the kitchen, she was yelling at the top of her lungs.

Which interpretation makes more sense?

They were silent, holding hands.

1. While they were silent, they held hands.

2. While they were silent, they were holding hands.

Which paraphrase best describes the situation?

CalifJim · Answer

jooneyHe came home, talking on the phone.

What does this sentence exactly mean?

1. While he came home, he talked on the phone.
=>It took 20 minutes to get home and he talked on the phone all this time.

2. He came home while he was talking on the phone/While he came home he was talking on the phone.

The talking started before he arrived home and continued afterwards. So this is a situation where I saw him arrive home and at that time he was talking on the phone. Correct?

Isn't it true that the first interpretation is also possible?

Both interpretations are possible. I instinctively thought it meant the first. The way you state them, they're are almost identical. For the second, I think you mean "When he came home, he was talking on the phone".

jooneyShe walked into the kitchen, yelling at the top of her lungs.

1. While she walked into the kitchen, she yelled at the top of her lungs.

2. While she waked into the kitchen, she was yelling at the top of her lungs.

Which interpretation makes more sense?

Again, your two paraphrases mean almost the same thing. Whenever you have "while", you force an imperfective interpretation. In any case, 2 is closer in meaning to the original.

jooneyThey were silent, holding hands.

1. While they were silent, they held hands.

2. While they were silent, they were holding hands.

Which paraphrase best describes the situation?

Again, the meaning of "while" interferes with your attempts to make these different. Additionally, 'holding hands' is stative, so the meaning doesn't change when a simple past tense is changed to a continuous past tense. All 'verbs of stance' have this same property. They sat there ~ They were sitting there.

My paraphrases would be:

They held hands in silence.
They held hands silently.
They were silent and holding hands.
They held hands without speaking.

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Thank you very much for the reply, CJ.

After reading your answers, I realized that I hadn't had a good grasp of the differences between "when" and "while". Before I go over the differences, I first need to make sure what counts as imperfective or perfective. I especially have trouble understanding the aspectuality of the event expressed in the subordinate clause. So please help me understand this.

ex1) When he arrived home from school, he called his mom.

The event in the when-clause is a perfective situation because his arriving home had been done before he called his mom.

ex2) When he came, we were having dinner.

Again, the when-clause denotes a perfective situation because his arrival was complete during the period of time when we were having dinner.

A: He came when we were having dinner.
B: He came on Monday.

If you change the sentence around a little bit as shown in "A", you can see that it is just like "B" in that the event of his coming is presented in its totality.

ex3) When we were on holiday, he came to see us.

We were on holiday, when he came to see us. The when-clause in the original sentence is a case of imperfectivity because it denotes only a small part of the whole event of our being on holiday.

What do you think of my analysis? It's really important that I understand this. Please share your opinions on this.

Participial clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions