restrictive meaning

Question

Dear all,"Carlos is building his (A) on a (B) overlooking the ocean."Does 'overlooking the ocean' restrict the meaning of (A) or (B) ?  (What is the grammar rule?).Thanks,Hoa Thai

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

"Carlos is building his (A) on a (B) overlooking the ocean." "Carlos is building his house on a hill overlooking the ocean."

Does 'overlooking the ocean' restrict the meaning of (A) or (B) ? (What is the grammar rule?).

I would take this adjectival phrase to be modifying the noun it follows, ie B.

Clive

Hoa Thai · Answer

Dear Clive,

You read my thought; 'house' and 'hill' are for (A) and (B), respectively. The reason that I use the two variables is for pinning down a grammar rule that I can rely on without having to confusingly make a choice.

However, if I take your advise, then the following sentence seems to send a different message:

"Carlos is building his house on a hill showing off its grand entrance / architecture."

Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Clive · Answer

Hi,

"Carlos is building his house on a hill showing off its grand entrance / architecture."

I see this example in the same way as the previous one, ie I see the present participle phrase as adjectival.

But now let's add a comma.

"Carlos is building his house on a hill, showing off its grand entrance / architecture."

Now the phrase becomes adverbial, modifying 'is building'.

Best wishes, Clive

Hoa Thai · Answer

Hello Clive,

First, using both of your comments, we now have two constructs:

1) Subject + verb + object + preposition + noun + adjectival phrase modifying the noun
2) Subject + verb + object + preposition + noun + , + adverbial phrase modifying the object.

Would they always stand?

Second, if I would like to combine the two in one sentence, would the following construct also stand?

Subject + verb + object + preposition + noun + adjectival phrase modifying the noun + , + adverbial phrase modifying the object.

For example, would you approve the following sentence to be not only grammatically correct but also naturally sound?

Carlos built his mansion on the hill overlooking the ocean, showing off its grand architecture.

Myself, I do not really like the sound of it! Moreover, according to Diana Hacker, the author of “A Writer’s Reference”, who wrote, “nonrestrictive phrases are set off with commas; restrictive phrases are not;” “showing off its grand architecture” could then become nonessential or parenthetical. Therefore, should I rewrite the above sentence to logically bring forth both intended meanings as follows?

On the hill overlooking the ocean, Carlos built his mansion showing off its grand architecture.

Thank you much for your help,
Hoa Thai

Clive · Answer

Hi,

First, using both of your comments, we now have two constructs:

1) Subject + verb + object + preposition + noun + adjectival phrase modifying the noun
2) Subject + verb + object + preposition + noun + , + adverbial phrase modifying the object.

Would they always stand? My initial reaction is to say 'yes', although I am reluctant to use words like 'always' because language is so idiomatic and flexible, and sometimes the meaning overrides rthe grammar (as I note below).

Second, if I would like to combine the two in one sentence, would the following construct also stand?

Subject + verb + object + preposition + noun + adjectival phrase modifying the noun + , + adverbial phrase modifying the object.

For example, would you approve the following sentence to be not only grammatically correct but also naturally sound? It sounds OK to me. My only and minor reservation is that it is not completely clear in terms of grammar as to what 'its' refers to, ie does it refer to the ocean? Or even the hill?. However, the use of the word 'architecture' makes the meaning clear.

Carlos built his mansion on the hill overlooking the ocean, showing off its grand architecture.

Myself, I do not really like the sound of it! Moreover, according to Diana Hacker, the author of “A Writer’s Reference”, who wrote, “nonrestrictive phrases are set off with commas; restrictive phrases are not;” “showing off its grand architecture” could then become nonessential or parenthetical. Therefore, should I rewrite the above sentence to logically bring forth both intended meanings as follows?

On the hill overlooking the ocean, Carlos built his mansion showing off its grand architecture. I don't like this sentence. How about

Showing off its grand architecture, Carlos built his mansion on the hill overlooking the ocean ?

Actually, I don't much like that one either. For your specific example, I'd suggest this slightly different structure.

On the hill overlooking the ocean, Carlos built his mansion to show off its grand architecture.

As you can see, I prefer to analyze examples rather than to formulate general rules.

Best wishes, Clive.

Anonymous · Answer

Dear Clive,

I have read grammar books, dictionaries, and usage references, but I still cannot find one that specifically deals with this type of construct (i.e., object + preposition + noun + [,] + present participle phrase). ‘A Writer’s References’ by Diana Hackers and ‘The Handbook of Good English’ by Edward D. Johnson are the two books that I have copies at home and at work. In them, all I can find are short sentences dealing with specific issues / rules. They are very concise and easy to follow. However, when I write, I often become confused when rules seem to present conflicts, which can also be found in good sources of writings.

Two of the constructs that are the most troublesome for me is the one above and the use of the ‘that’ and ‘which’ in the place of the present participle. Sometimes, one can decipher via the context; but other times, the meaning and/or the logic could be faulty.

I don’t mean to find fault with the language. I actually love its inexactness. Sometimes, it seems that the rules are there to be broken, yearning to be freed in searching for creativeness. However, eventually, new rules must be set and become a new foundation for further marching.

Perhaps, my attempt to find a rule is considered over-reaching and futile in this case.

Once again, thank you for sharing.

Hoa Thai

Hoa Thai · Answer

Hi Clive,

I forgot to sign in earlier and wanted to correct that. Then I found out that we must have misread each other.

My intention is to find out the rule that governs a construct where the adjectival present participle phrase is used to modify either the object or the noun, not the adverbial phrase that modifies the verb. In other words, in the sentence “Carlos built his mansion on the hill overlooking the ocean,” You associated the present participle phrase with ‘the hill’. However, what I would like to learn is how to use a present participle phrase to support the ‘mansion’. The phrase ‘showing off its grand architecture’ was used to mean ‘the mansion shows off ...’ (i.e., I personified the building).

In the same line of thought, here are similar sentences that could possibly confuse the readers:

1) You must build the house on that hill according to the government’s instruction.

Is the instruction for the hill or the house? Could this be disputed in the court of laws?

2) You must build the house on the lot that meets the government’s decrees.

Same question – Does the ‘that’ go with the lot or the house?

I find both sentences are logically faulty due to the existence of the preposition on. That is the reason I have tried to search for a rule. Now, with your comments, I concluded that I should stay away from these types of construct, even though they seem to flow rather naturally.

Thank you for your patience and generosity,
Hoa Thai

Clive · Answer

Hi,

I forgot to sign in earlier and wanted to correct that. Then I found out that we must have misread each other.

My intention is to find out the rule that governs a construct where the adjectival present participle phrase is used to modify either the object or the noun, not the adverbial phrase that modifies the verb. In other words, in the sentence “Carlos built his mansion on the hill overlooking the ocean,” You associated the present participle phrase with ‘the hill’. However, what I would like to learn is how to use a present participle phrase to support the ‘mansion’. The phrase ‘showing off its grand architecture’ was used to mean ‘the mansion shows off ...’ (i.e., I personified the building).

In that case, I'd say “Carlos built his mansion overlooking the ocean on the hill.”

Or you could say “On the hill, Carlos built his mansion overlooking the ocean.”

In the same line of thought, here are similar sentences that could possibly confuse the readers:

1) You must build the house on that hill according to the government’s instruction.

Is the instruction for the hill or the house? Neither, to me.This seems adverbial.

Could this be disputed in the court of laws? Anything can be disputed in a court of law.

2) You must build the house on the lot that meets the government’s decrees.

Same question – Does the ‘that’ go with the lot or the house? The lot.

'Meets . . ' seems awkward. I'd prefer 'conforms to . . '.

I find both sentences are logically faulty due to the existence of the preposition on. That is the reason I have tried to search for a rule. Now, with your comments, I concluded that I should stay away from these types of construct, even though they seem to flow rather naturally. It's not really related specifically to 'on'. It's the positioning after a noun of a phrase that relates to an earlier noun. Consider these examples.

He wrote a letter resigning his job in London.

She got a job in a factory painting furniture.

The doctor saw a patient in a white coat.

We don't spend ages hesitating before we say such things. If we sense there may be confusion, we often instinctively choose another form of words. Otherwise, the listener may ask us to clarify our statement. Sometimes the listener cares, sometimes they don't even care.

Best wishes again, Clive

Hoa Thai · Answer

Hello Clive,

I got your message!

With special thanks,
Hoa Thai

restrictive meaning

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions