Participle clause vs phrase?

Question

First of all, I've been working under the assumption that "participle" refers to the -ing or -ed ending itself and so it should be called a participial phrase or participial clause as opposed to participle phrase/clause.

But also, I must not have a good enough understanding of how these phrases or clauses work. I've understood the -ing "gerund-participle" to function as either a noun, a verb, or an adjective (per the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language).

But apparently there's a difference between a participial phrase (which modifies a noun and functions as an adjective) and a "participle clause" which functions as an adverb. Is this true? I'm looking through the CGEL now and can't seem to find anything that explains the difference.

Would anyone be able to explain the difference to me and maybe provide a credible resource or two or a page number from the CGEL? (I know it's a lot to ask.) Huge thanks in advance!

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

I can't help you with CGEL because I haven't read it; however, I think I might be able to help a little.

anonymousapparently there's a difference between a participial phrase (which modifies a noun and functions as an adjective) and a "participle clause" which functions as an adverb.

That's basically my understanding as well. I believe what they call a participle phrase is a modifier, if they really make that distinction. (Personally, I have to say that they both look like clauses to me.) Traditional grammar would call these reduced relative clauses.

That plane flying over the city just now is built by Boeing.

These are conceptualized (but probably not in CGEL) as relative clauses which are missing 'who' or 'which' (a "wh" word) and a form of be (e.g., is). Since 'is' is pronounced 'iz', this led to the term "Whiz Deletion" (from which iz), a term now scarcely heard anymore. In any case, by this method of analysis the sentence above is said to be derived from

That plane which is flying over the city just now is built by Boeing.

Any participle construction which cannot be seen as a reduced relative clause, and therefore as a participle phrase, is called a participle clause. However, the theory presented in CGEL does not call these adverbial. It calls them 'supplementary clauses' or 'supplements'. They add information to the sentence, but they do not modify anything. They are subordinate in nature even though they are not connected to the main clause by a subordinating conjunction. So the semantic relation of the participle clause to the main clause must be worked out by the reader/listener. (In my personal opinion, participle clauses are secondary predicates for an implicit subject which is identical to the subject of the main clause of the sentence — though they may carry their own subjects as well.)

Tom lost his keys walking through the park.
(Tom lost his keys. + Tom was walking through the park.)
(Relationship: simultaneity > Meaning: Tom lost his keys while he was walking through the park.)

Here's an example where the participle clause has its own subject (the crew):

The crew keeping the oil from spreading, containment of the spill was achieved.

Such constructions are also called 'absolutes' ('absolute participle clauses').

anonymousI'm looking through the CGEL now and can't seem to find anything that explains the difference.

It's possible that CGEL doesn't conceptualize these constructions as different. Our resident expert on modern grammar is BillJ, and he may see your post and explain this more precisely from CGEL's point of view.

CJ

Participle clause vs phrase?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions