Participial clause

Question

Hi,ex1) Dressed in everything from formal gowns to T-shirts, she cultivated the image of a fun-loving but ardent good girl.Q1) "dress in something" denotes an active clause.  Correct?ex) She always dresses in black clothes.ex2) For much of the 1990s, she turned to acting, bolstered by her music.Q2) Should I look at the underlined part as a reduced relative clause or a participial clause?Reduced relative clause: She turned to acting, which was bolstered by her music.Q2-1) Which is the antecedent of "which", acting or the whole main clause?  The latter, correct?Participial clause: She turned to acting, bolstered by her music.(X)Q2-2) The participial clause interpretation is not possible in the eyes of some grammarians who support the view of "dangling modifiers", since there is a mismatch between the subject of the main clause and the subject of the participial clause.  Correct?ex3) Her albums in the 2000s advanced a new persona for Ms. Houston. “Just Whitney,” in 2002, was defensive and scrappy, lashing out at the media and insisting on her loyalty to her man.Q3) So it is the album "Just Whitney" that did the activities described in the participial clause, namely lashing out at the media and insisting on her loyalty to her man.  Correct?ex4) The streets in front of the Beverly Hilton, already crowded because of the Grammy Awards party taking place there, swarmed with reporters and fans, drawn by the news of this latest high-profile pop star dying in Los Angeles.Q4) As an intermediate-level English learner, I find the sentence a little odd in that there is no linking verb.  Shouldn't there be a linking verb "be" between "the Beverly Hilton" and "already"? The streets in front of the Beverly Hilton were already crowded...Q4-1) "swarmed with reporters and fans" is a participial clause and it elaborates on the event of the streets being crowded.  Correct?Q4-2) "drawn by the news of this latest high-profile pop star dying in Los Angeles" is a reduced relative clause that modifies the preceding participial clause.  Right?ex5) At central Park in 2009, singing for "Good Morning America," her voice was frayed, and the on the whole world tour that follwed the release of the album "I Look to You" that year, she was often shaky.Q5) The underlined part is what some grammarians call a "dangling modifier".  Correct?I'd appreciate your help.p.s. Sorry for posting too many questions in just one post.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

jooneyex1) Dressed in everything from formal gowns to T-shirts, she cultivated the image of a fun-loving but ardent good girl.

Q1) "dress in something" denotes an active clause. Correct?

ex) She always dresses in black clothes.

Both forms exist. She [always dresses / is always dressed] in black clothes. The former implies something dynamic: She always puts on black clothes. The latter implies something stative: She always has on black clothes.

The participle clause in your "ex1" is strikes me as stative. There's nothing in the sentence that suggests to me that someone (else) put those clothes on her.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

jooneyex2) For much of the 1990s, she turned to acting, bolstered by her music.

Q2) Should I look at the underlined part as a reduced relative clause or a participial clause?

Reduced relative clause: She turned to acting, which was bolstered by her music.

Q2-1) Which is the antecedent of "which", acting or the whole main clause? The latter, correct?

Participial clause: She turned to acting, bolstered by her music.(X)

Q2-2) The participial clause interpretation is not possible in the eyes of some grammarians who support the view of "dangling modifiers", since there is a mismatch between the subject of the main clause and the subject of the participial clause. Correct?

Q2) I'm not following you. Can't a clause be both of those things at the same time?
It's a participle clause to my ear. I can't find anything that makes a good antecedent for a relative clause there.
Q2-1) I don't buy the suggestion that "acting" could be an antecedent.
Q2-2) I disagree. She was bolstered by her music when she turned to acting. Same subject in both clauses.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

jooneyex3) Her albums in the 2000s advanced a new persona for Ms. Houston. “Just Whitney,” in 2002, was defensive and scrappy, lashing out at the media and insisting on her loyalty to her man.

Q3) So it is the album "Just Whitney" that did the activities described in the participial clause, namely lashing out at the media and insisting on her loyalty to her man. Correct?

Yes, but metaphorically. Ms. Houston lashed out and insisted, but the writer is using a literary convention in which something closely associated with a person is used to refer to the person himself. A common example is the use of "The crown" to refer to a king or queen. "The crown disagreed with Parliament on this occasion".

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

jooneyex4) The streets in front of the Beverly Hilton, already crowded because of the Grammy Awards party taking place there, swarmed with reporters and fans, drawn by the news of this latest high-profile pop star dying in Los Angeles.

Q4) As an intermediate-level English learner, I find the sentence a little odd in that there is no linking verb. Shouldn't there be a linking verb "be" between "the Beverly Hilton" and "already"?

The streets in front of the Beverly Hilton were already crowded...

Q4-1) "swarmed with reporters and fans" is a participial clause and it elaborates on the event of the streets being crowded. Correct?

Q4-2) "drawn by the news of this latest high-profile pop star dying in Los Angeles" is a reduced relative clause that modifies the preceding participial clause. Right?

The basic sentence is: The streets swarmed with reporters and fans.

I think the use of "swarmed" as the main verb in this sentence is confusing you. It means that the streets were filled with the activities and movements of reporters and fans. "swarmed with" is the usual combination for expressing this sort of idea.

streets has a modifier headed by a participle (crowded). Reduced relative clause. The streets (which were crowded because ...).

reporters and fans also has a modifier headed by a participle (drawn). Reduced relative clause. Reporters and fans (who were drawn by ...).

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

jooneyex5) At central Park in 2009, singing for "Good Morning America," her voice was frayed, and the on the whole world tour that follwed the release of the album "I Look to You" that year, she was often shaky.

Q5) The underlined part is what some grammarians call a "dangling modifier". Correct?

Correct, but not the best example of a dangling modifier because, if you stretch it a bit, her voice really was singing, I suppose.

Here's one I like better:

Peering through the microscope, the butterflies looked beautiful.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

jooneySorry for posting too many questions in just one post.

Yes. Well, as you see, I've separated them out to make answering more manageable.

Try not to go past five in one post, though, if you can help it!

CJ

Jooney · Answer

Thank you very much for your answers, CJ. It seems like I made a lot of mistakes in analyzing this.

<example 1>

Dressed in everything from formal gowns to T-shirts, she cultivated the image of a fun-loving but ardent good girl.

"The participle clause in your "ex1" is strikes me as stative. There's nothing in the sentence that suggests to me that someone (else) put those clothes on her."

After reading your answer, I still find it difficult to see why it should be interpreted as stative.

Because she put on particular clothes, she cultivated the image of a fun loving but ardent good girl.

Q1) Is this interpretation odd? Could you explain why this interpretation doesn't show the intended meaning?

<example 2>

ex2) For much of the 1990s, she turned to acting, bolstered by her music.

"It's a participle clause to my ear. I can't find anything that makes a good antecedent for a relative clause there."

I thought her turning to acting could be the antecedent of which. Huddleston has a similar example in his book.

ex) Max arrived late, which caused some delay.

R caused some delay. The R is interpreted as Max's arriving late. So the preceding clause is the antecedent of which.

Same goes for the original example.

She turned to acting, which was bolstered by her music.

X was bolstered by her music. The X refers to her turning to acting.

Q2) Isn't it possible to think of it this way?

"I disagree. She was bolstered by her music when she turned to acting. Same subject in both clauses."

Yes, I was completely wrong. I don't know what I was thinking.

<example 4>

ex4) The streets in front of the Beverly Hilton, already crowded because of the Grammy Awards party taking place there, swarmed with reporters and fans, drawn by the news of this latest high-profile pop star dying in Los Angeles.

"I think the use of "swarmed" as the main verb in this sentence is confusing you."

Two fatal mistakes were made on my part. First, I didn't think of the part that starts with "already" as a modifier of the "streets". Second, I mistakenly thought that with the verb "swarm" the passive "be" was necessary to show the meaning of "be filled with something".

CalifJim · Answer

jooney<example 1>

Dressed in everything from formal gowns to T-shirts, she cultivated the image of a fun-loving but ardent good girl.

"The participle clause in your "ex1" is strikes me as stative. There's nothing in the sentence that suggests to me that someone (else) put those clothes on her."

After reading your answer, I still find it difficult to see why it should be interpreted as stative.

Because she put on particular clothes, she cultivated the image of a fun loving but ardent good girl.

Q1) Is this interpretation odd? Could you explain why this interpretation doesn't show the intended meaning?

Dressed in ... ~ Wearing ... ~ Appearing in ...

It's just how she looked on various occasions, which is a very passive, stative idea.

To get a more active, dynamic idea you need Dressing in ... ~ Putting on ....

The difference is slight, so if I were you, I wouldn't get very excited or worried about this one.

jooneyex2) For much of the 1990s, she turned to acting, bolstered by her music.

"It's a participle clause to my ear. I can't find anything that makes a good antecedent for a relative clause there."

I thought her turning to acting could be the antecedent of which. Huddleston has a similar example in his book.

ex) Max arrived late, which caused some delay.

R caused some delay. The R is interpreted as Max's arriving late. So the preceding clause is the antecedent of which.

Same goes for the original example.

She turned to acting, which was bolstered by her music.

X was bolstered by her music. The X refers to her turning to acting.

Q2) Isn't it possible to think of it this way?

I see your point if we take the antecedent to be the entire idea of turning to acting. It wouldn't be my first choice as an explanation, however, because as we now agree, the subject of both clauses is "she" in She turned to acting, bolstered by her music. We can't have the same subject in both clauses if we reinterpret it as She turned to acting, which was bolstered by her music, because here 'which' is not 'she', but 'the fact that she turned to acting'.

CJ

Jooney · Answer

I see.  Thank you very much for the help, CJ.<img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/1.gif' alt='Emotion: smile'/>

BillJ · Answer

jooneyex1) Dressed in everything from formal gowns to T-shirts, she cultivated the image of a fun-loving but ardent good girl.Q1) "dress in something" denotes an active clause. Correct?ex) She always dresses in black clothes.

I would say that "Dressed in everything..." is not a clause, but an adjective phrase functioning as a predicative complement. To be precise, it's an adjectival passive (or pseudo-passive). Though the past participle "dressed" is not a "real" adjective, it functions like one, and in this case has the preposition phrase "in everything..." as a complement. The subject "she" is easily retrievable from the matrix clause, so we understand "She was dressed in everything from formal gowns to T-shirts".

Contrast that adjectival meaning of "dressed" with its verbal meaning in "She was dressed by her maid.". This is a passive proper which has the active counterpart "Her maid dressed her". That clause would have a dynamic interpretation.

Adjectival passives always have a stative interpretation.

jooneyex2) For much of the 1990s, she turned to acting, bolstered by her music.Q2) Should I look at the underlined part as a reduced relative clause or a participial clause?Reduced relative clause: She turned to acting, which was bolstered by her music.Q2-1) Which is the antecedent of "which", acting or the whole main clause? The latter, correct?Participial clause: She turned to acting, bolstered by her music.(X)Q2-2) The participial clause interpretation is not possible in the eyes of some grammarians who support the view of "dangling modifiers", since there is a mismatch between the subject of the main clause and the subject of the participial clause. Correct?

Relative clauses are finite; this is a non-finite clause, specifically a past-participial clause. The subject of the matrix clause, "she", is clearly a plausible candidate for the missing subject in the subordinate pp clause. Further evidence comes from the fact that the pronoun "her" can only have "she" as an antecedent. And the antecedent of "she" (i.e. Ms. Houston) will be found earlier in the report. We understand that Ms.Houston was bolstered by her music, so no serious "dangling modifier" to worry about here.

jooneyex3) Her albums in the 2000s advanced a new persona for Ms. Houston. “Just Whitney,” in 2002, was defensive and scrappy, lashing out at the media and insisting on her loyalty to her man.Q3) So it is the album "Just Whitney" that did the activities described in the participial clause, namely lashing out at the media and insisting on her loyalty to her man. Correct?

Yes. At least according to the NYT. This time the participial clause is a post-head modifier of the NP "Just Whitney".

jooneyex4) The streets in front of the Beverly Hilton, already crowded because of the Grammy Awards party taking place there, swarmed with reporters and fans, drawn by the news of this latest high-profile pop star dying in Los Angeles.Q4) As an intermediate-level English learner, I find the sentence a little odd in that there is no linking verb. Shouldn't there be a linking verb "be" between "the Beverly Hilton" and "already"?

No, the past-participial clause "already crowded ..." is modifying the NP "The streets..." It is equivalent to the finite relative clause "which were already crowded because of the Grammy Awards...".

jooneyThe streets in front of the Beverly Hilton were already crowded...Q4-1) "swarmed with reporters and fans" is a participial clause and it elaborates on the event of the streets being crowded. Correct?Q4-2) "drawn by the news of this latest high-profile pop star dying in Los Angeles" is a reduced relative clause that modifies the preceding participial clause. Right?

No, simple past tense: "The streets in front of the BH... swarmed with reporters and fans".

"Drawn by the news..." is a past-participial clause modifying the NP 'reporters and fans'".

jooneyex5) At central Park in 2009, singing for "Good Morning America," her voice was frayed, and the on the whole world tour that follwed the release of the album "I Look to You" that year, she was often shaky.Q5) The underlined part is what some grammarians call a "dangling modifier". Correct?

No. The identity of the pro-form "her" in "her voice was frayed" in the matrix clause will be easily retrievable from references to Ms. Houston earlier in the report, so it's clear who "her" refers to. So the antecedent of "her", i.e. Ms. Houston, is interpreted as the missing subject of the preceding participial clause. We understand that it's her (Ms. Houston) who was doing the singing and her voice was frayed. The pro-form "she" in the second coordinate clause will also refer to Ms Houston, and serves to bolster our interpretation of the subject of the participial clause.

There are varying degrees of the so-called dangling modifier. Some are simply unacceptable and hence ungrammatical, but in other cases the subjects are easily recovered from the containing clause and no real ambiguity arises.

BillJ

Participial clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions