Positioning of participle phrases

Question

Does the position of the participle phrase cause ambiguity in the following sentence?

"The designers have made it clear that the car is meant only a supplementary vehicle, proving to be the most useful in people's daily commutes."

There are two things in the sentence that the phrase can apply to: the vehicle or the designers. In this example, it applies to the vehicle, but I don't know if that is clear.

The same problem applies here:

"The designers have made it clear that the car is meant only as a supplementary vehicle, suggesting that it is most useful in people's daily commutes."

In this example, the participle phrase applies to the designers.

I feel like only one of these can be correct.

GPY · Accepted Answer

JJDouglas"The designers have made it clear that the car is meant only as a supplementary vehicle, proving to be the most useful in people's daily commutes."

This doesn't work for me.

JJDouglas"The designers have made it clear that the car is meant only as a supplementary vehicle, suggesting that it is most useful in people's daily commutes."

This is ambiguous. It could mean that the designers suggest that, or it could mean that the fact that the designers made it clear what the car is meant for suggests that.

JJDouglas · Answer

Would the following help rectify the first example?

"The designers have made it clear that the car is meant only as a supplementary vehicle, thought to be the most useful in people's daily commutes."

Are there any specific rules on participle phrases that help avoid ambiguity? I know that it is meant to come as close to the subject it modifies as possible, but there seems to be some leeway on this.

For instance, I think the following is acceptable with the participle phrase at the end.

"John grabbed his umbrella before heading out to work, having heard on the radio that it was going to rain."

GPY · Answer

JJDouglas"The designers have made it clear that the car is meant only as a supplementary vehicle, thought to be the most useful in people's daily commutes."

It's still not good, in my view. I think the combination "meant ... thought to be" is the main problem. Is "thought to be" still within the scope of "meant"? Who thinks that? The designers? Someone else?

"the most useful" should probably also be "most useful".

JJDouglas"John grabbed his umbrella before heading out to work, having heard on the radio that it was going to rain."

This is fine.

JJDouglas · Answer

GPYIt's still not good, in my view. I think the combination "meant ... thought to be" is the main problem. Is "thought to be" still within the scope of "meant"? Who thinks that? The designers? Someone else?

It's meant to be the designers. What if I completely took out "thought to be" and just had "...meant only as a supplementary vehicle, most useful in people's daily commutes." Would that make sense?

GPYThis is fine.

Is there any reason why that one is fine even though the participle phrase is on the opposite end of the sentence to the subject it modifies? The closest subject to it is "work", so wouldn't it be thought to modify that?

GPY · Answer

JJDouglasWhat if I completely took out "thought to be" and just had "...meant only as a supplementary vehicle, most useful in people's daily commutes." Would that make sense?

Yes. This removes the awkwardness (as I see it) of the car being "meant as something thought to be ...".

JJDouglasIs there any reason why that one is fine even though the participle phrase is on the opposite end of the sentence to the subject it modifies? The closest subject to it is "work", so wouldn't it be thought to modify that?

Well, first of all, it is of course semantically impossible for "having heard on the radio" to modify "work". In any case, it hardly seems possible for a perfect participle to modify a word in such a position in a sentence. At the moment I cannot think of any comparable examples that are viable. For example, you cannot say something like "Bad weather greeted John, having heard on the radio that it was going to rain". In addition, the idiomatic phrasing of "heading out to work" does not exactly invite a modifier following (though it is not impossible, e.g. you could say "heading out to work that was boring and futile"). For all these reasons, the interpretation that "having heard on the radio" could modify "work" would never be considered.

JJDouglas · Answer

OK, I think I understand, but can a participle phrase still modify an object, such as in the following?

"John found Tom down by the canal, cradling his head in his hands." – Though in this example, I'm not sure if the comma is needed (the participle phrase is meant to modify "Tom").

Also, would the following be deemed awkward and ambiguous?

"By using the new model, you will not only be helping keep yourself accident-free but also be making sure you don’t unnecessarily waste fuel, meaning our cars are a smart choice for environmentally friendly drivers."

GPY · Answer

JJDouglas"John found Tom down by the canal, cradling his head in his hands." – Though in this example, I'm not sure if the comma is needed (the participle phrase is meant to modify "Tom").

Yes, this is OK. The comma is optional.

JJDouglas"By using the new model, you will not only be helping keep yourself accident-free but also be making sure you don’t unnecessarily waste fuel, meaning our cars are a smart choice for environmentally friendly drivers."

The use of "meaning our cars ...", which I think is mainly what you are asking about, is acceptable. Overall, I would not say that it is the greatest sentence ever written.

JJDouglas · Answer

GPYThe use of "meaning our cars ...", which I think is mainly what you are asking about, is acceptable. Overall, I would not say that it is the greatest sentence ever written.

Yes, it is. Sorry, I should have clarified what I was asking about. Any suggestions on how I could reword it to be better?

GPY · Answer

For me, it's the "be helping keep ... be making sure ..." combination that seems just a little cumbersome (though not actually wrong). I wondered about taking the "be" out of these and putting it before "not only", but I'm not sure it really helps. Maybe it's better as you have it ...

JJDouglas · Answer

OK, thank you for your answers.

I have come across a few more examples that I would like another opinion on. To me, the subjects the participial phrases are modifying in the following sentences are unclear, but that may be just because I'm focusing on them too much.

"The statistics show that the UK is one of the safest places to work in Europe, having one of the lowest rates of fatal accidents in the workplace."

I've seen this written and am not sure if it's right. I first read it as the statistics having one of the lowest rates of fatal accidents, though it obviously should be the UK. Is this construction right, or should it be reworded for clarity?

Also, what about if a writer does want the participial phrase to modify the "statistics"? Is the following acceptable?

"The statistics show that the UK is one of the safest places to work in Europe, proving that the state has one of the lowest rates of fatal accidents in the workplace."

I feel like only one of these examples can be correct, unless the reader is simply expected to use their own judgement and sense.

Here is another one that caused me to stop and think:

"Our training company provides many tailored and unique courses, encompassing all the different educational elements that you require."

Again, there is ambiguity here over whether the phrase starting "encompassing..." modifies the company or the courses. (It's meant to be the courses, but I'm not sure if that is clear or if the sentence is even grammatically correct.)

Positioning of participle phrases

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions