What is this grammatical structure called?

[tomlitilia]

Consider the following example:
"Making sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
What is the part of the sentence before the comma called? It modifies how she peeks around the corner. A modifying clause? An adverb clause? And is it different from the slightly different:
"To make sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
The last example would just be a dependent clause, I think.

 

[litfan10]

I've always called that an introductory clause. It's dependent on the rest of the sentence, and it introduces elements that enhance the main, independent clause.

If you put it after the independent clause there would be no punctuation, and it would not be introductory but a part of a long singular independent clause.

 

[SamScribble]

Consider the following example:
"Making sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
What is the part of the sentence before the comma called? It modifies how she peeks around the corner. A modifying clause? An adverb clause? And is it different from the slightly different:
"To make sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
The last example would just be a dependent clause, I think.

I know that it's not the answer you are looking for, but I really do worry about writers who worry about what things are called. 'Called' grammar is descriptive. It describes what someone has written. I have a book filled, from cover to cover, with grammatical descriptions. Does it help me to write more readable prose? No. Writing is what helps me to write readable prose. Put the books away and get back to writing.

 

[litfan10]

I know that it's not the answer you are looking for, but I really do worry about writers who worry about what things are called. 'Called' grammar is descriptive. It describes what someone has written. I have a book filled, from cover to cover, with grammatical descriptions. Does it help me to write more readable prose? No. Writing is what helps me to write readable prose. Put the books away and get back to writing.

Love it! So true.

I teach writing so I know these things. I spent many years professionally writing before I began teaching. I had to sit down and "learn" A LOT before I could describe it to others.

I make a point during grammar to describe the name 'parts of speech' as crazy because everything we say or write is technically a part of our speech.

Another example is a basic sentence. I ask my students to tell me what a sentence is. I always get the memorized " it's a complete thought with a subject and a verb (predicate.). I will also always get a couple who say "never start a sentence with the word 'and.'

This is great as I show them a sentence in the first chapter in Kate Dicamillo's award winning (it won a Newbury - there is no higher children's award - among many others) book Because of Winn-Dixie.

The sentence is "And ugly." Award winning. I tell my kids that it wasn't a mistake. She meant it and her multiple editors allowed it. She had a good reason - pacing and strong emphasis.

This is when I tell my kids don't worry about the "rules." They are important but more for an editor. What is important is to write every word because you mean it, and it is the best word possible. Go for clarity of understanding and the message, everything else just gums up the works.

 

[tomlitilia]

it's not the answer you are looking for

Indeed

 

[jaF0]

I really do worry about writers who worry about what things are called.

Indeed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I know that it's not the answer you are looking for, but I really do worry about writers who worry about what things are called. 'Called' grammar is descriptive. It describes what someone has written. I have a book filled, from cover to cover, with grammatical descriptions. Does it help me to write more readable prose? No. Writing is what helps me to write readable prose. Put the books away and get back to writing.

It's a lot easier to look things up and discuss them when one knows what they're called. Sometimes that's a useful thing to do.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

According to Michael Gove, recent Secretary of State for Education who set a daft new curriculum based vaguely on his own memories of a classical education, it's a fronted adverbial.

Cue eleven-year-olds in tears because they're expected to memorise that and other not-quite-right definitions for their SATs.

One enormous silver lining of the lockdown is bloody SATs (tests for all Year 2 and Year 6 pupils) have been abolished.

 

[SimonDoom]

Consider the following example:
"Making sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
What is the part of the sentence before the comma called? It modifies how she peeks around the corner. A modifying clause? An adverb clause? And is it different from the slightly different:
"To make sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
The last example would just be a dependent clause, I think.

In your first example, the words before the comma constitute a participial phrase. A participial phrase is a group of words that begin with a participle, which is the form of a verb that ends in "ing." The phrase acts as a modifier. In this case, the phrase modifies the verb "peeked." It explains why she is peeking. The phrase is therefore an adverbial phrase (participial phrases also can modify nouns and therefore function as adjectives).

In your second example, the words before the comma constitute an infinitive phrase. The phrase serves the same kind of function as in the first example, but "to make" is an infinitive in contrast to "making", which is a participle.

You can tell that both are phrases, not clauses, because clauses have a subject and a verb, and neither of these phrases has a subject.

I disagree somewhat with Sam. I agree that grammatical pedantry does not equate to good writing. I agree, too, that writing a lot is a better way to learn good writing than mastering grammar rules. But it's useful to know grammar, nonetheless, because it can answer questions about how something should be written that a good ear, alone, won't necessarily answer in every case. Plus, it's an interesting subject in its own right, apart from its usefulness in writing well.

 

[jaF0]

Whatever I read has to flow in a conversational manner. If I find myself stumbling or re-reading bits, I just stop and go on to something else. I'm not going to be concerned with whether the writer was 'grammatically correct and well structured' or if they knew the terms for the bits and segments they wrote.

As a consequence, I find myself reading less and less these days.

 

[KeithD]

Consider the following example:
"Making sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
What is the part of the sentence before the comma called? It modifies how she peeks around the corner. A modifying clause? An adverb clause? And is it different from the slightly different:
"To make sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
The last example would just be a dependent clause, I think.

A gerund clause.

 

[SimonDoom]

A gerund clause.

It's not a gerund, because it's not functioning as a noun. A gerund is a noun, and a gerund phrase is a phrase that functions as a noun.

Example:

Making sure the coast was clear was my job as the lookout.

In this case [Making sure the coast was clear] is the subject of the sentence. It's a gerund phrase (phrase, not clause, because it lacks a subject-verb).

In Tomlitilia's example [Making sure the coast was clear] is a participial phrase, not a gerund phrase, because, although it consists of a participle (making), it's not used as a noun.

I think my previous answer was wrong in this respect, however: the participial phrase is an adjective that modifies "she" rather than an adverb that modifies the verb.

Here's a link to a discussion of gerund phrases and participial phrases:

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-participial-phrase-1691588

 

[Bramblethorn]

I disagree somewhat with Sam. I agree that grammatical pedantry does not equate to good writing. I agree, too, that writing a lot is a better way to learn good writing than mastering grammar rules. But it's useful to know grammar, nonetheless, because it can answer questions about how something should be written that a good ear, alone, won't necessarily answer in every case. Plus, it's an interesting subject in its own right, apart from its usefulness in writing well.

I've always been a heavy reader, but didn't do a lot of formal English grammar in school (and none after). So I learned the rules through osmosis—well enough for paid editing work, apparently—but there are many that I couldn't name or easily articulate, and sometimes that's quite frustrating. If I'm editing for somebody and telling them "this isn't right", it would be helpful to be able to point to reasons beyond "I read a lot so I know this isn't how it's done".

 

[SimonDoom]

I've always been a heavy reader, but didn't do a lot of formal English grammar in school (and none after). So I learned the rules through osmosis—well enough for paid editing work, apparently—but there are many that I couldn't name or easily articulate, and sometimes that's quite frustrating. If I'm editing for somebody and telling them "this isn't right", it would be helpful to be able to point to reasons beyond "I read a lot so I know this isn't how it's done".

I received a solid traditional English grammar education when I was a kid, and I taught grammar a long time ago as an English teacher. I was an editor of a professional journal for a little while. Writing solid, grammatical English (not fiction) has been an essential part of my profession over the last 30 years. But, beyond that, I just like grammar. I always have. I'm analytical and I like parsing sentences. I enjoyed diagramming sentences when I learned to do so in middle school. I guess I'm a nerd.

Apart from that, and in sharp contrast with Sam (whose attitude I respect, by the way), I like taxonomy. I've always enjoyed natural history and have been a birdwatcher since I was a kid, and I like memorizing the names of things. That includes the names of parts of speech and grammatical terms. So, a preoccupation with what to call things seems perfectly normal to me.

Everybody's different. I think we can all agree that you learn more about how to write well by actually doing it than by reading grammar books. But grammar is a useful supplement -- more useful for some than for others, admittedly. To some extent, it depends on how you're wired.

 

[SamScribble]

Everybody's different. I think we can all agree that you learn more about how to write well by actually doing it than by reading grammar books. But grammar is a useful supplement -- more useful for some than for others, admittedly. To some extent, it depends on how you're wired.

Fair comment, Simon. I don't disagree.

 

[yukonnights]

I received a solid traditional English grammar education when I was a kid, and I taught grammar a long time ago as an English teacher. I was an editor of a professional journal for a little while. Writing solid, grammatical English (not fiction) has been an essential part of my profession over the last 30 years. But, beyond that, I just like grammar. I always have. I'm analytical and I like parsing sentences. I enjoyed diagramming sentences when I learned to do so in middle school. I guess I'm a nerd.

Apart from that, and in sharp contrast with Sam (whose attitude I respect, by the way), I like taxonomy. I've always enjoyed natural history and have been a birdwatcher since I was a kid, and I like memorizing the names of things. That includes the names of parts of speech and grammatical terms. So, a preoccupation with what to call things seems perfectly normal to me.

Everybody's different. I think we can all agree that you learn more about how to write well by actually doing it than by reading grammar books. But grammar is a useful supplement -- more useful for some than for others, admittedly. To some extent, it depends on how you're wired.

I'm really glad you spilled the beans on your background — I don't feel so inadequate and dull witted knowing you've had a reason to be so smart on this stuff. (Honestly, I thought you must be attending night classes or something.)

Me, I just fly by the seat of my pants and sometimes my undies get a bit bunched. Then I have to stop and get 'em un-bunched

 

[NotWise]

Consider the following example:
"Making sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
What is the part of the sentence before the comma called? It modifies how she peeks around the corner. A modifying clause? An adverb clause? And is it different from the slightly different:
"To make sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."
The last example would just be a dependent clause, I think.

I call the part before the comma "out of place." I don't know that there's a grammatical problem with it--there are many similar examples--but it gives me the reason for her peeking before I know that she was peeking. To me, it's a jarring construction.

No-one needs to write like I write, but what I'd prefer is, "She peeked around the corner to make sure the coast was clear." I want to know what she did before I know why she did it, otherwise it's something of an anachronism.

So, what is the name for the phrase "to make sure the coast was clear"?

 

[SimonDoom]

So, what is the name for the phrase "to make sure the coast was clear"?

It's an infinitive phrase, since it begins with the infinitive form of the verb "to make."

The phrase "to make sure the coast was clear" modifies the verb "peeked." It explains why she peeked. So this is an example of an infinitive phrase used as an adverb.

An infinitive phrase can serve as a noun, an adjective, or an adverb.

Other examples of infinitive phrases:

[To be or not to be], that is the question.

[To err] is human.

I want [to ride my bicycle.]

I need [to know.]

Can anybody find me somebody [to love]?

Space, the final frontier

These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise;

Its five year mission

[To explore strange new worlds];

[To seek out new life And new civilizations];

[To boldly go where no man has gone before].



I agree your version flows better and sounds better than the original version, although the original version with the participial phrase beginning the sentence is grammatically correct.

 

[NotWise]

I agree your version flows better and sounds better than the original version, although the original version with the participial phrase beginning the sentence is grammatically correct.

So let's turn it around.

"To make sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."

This puts the cause before the action and makes a cause->effect link. It replaces "Making" with "To make."

I assume the part before the comma is still an infinitive phrase. I don't like it as much because the comma (which seems to be necessary) interrupts the flow of the sentence. One makes more sense to me than the other. What's the significant difference?

 

[SimonDoom]

So let's turn it around.

"To make sure the coast was clear, she peeked around the corner."

This puts the cause before the action and makes a cause->effect link. It replaces "Making" with "To make."

I assume the part before the comma is still an infinitive phrase. I don't like it as much because the comma (which seems to be necessary) interrupts the flow of the sentence. One makes more sense to me than the other. What's the significant difference?

I think your gut is right on this one.

When you put the infinitive phrase at the start, separated by a comma, you are separating it from the word that it modifies: peeked. Instead, it's juxtaposed with "she." But I don't think it modifies "she." It modifies "peeked." So it's an inelegant way of saying this. Better to write it the way you did.

You could do this other ways:

She wanted to make sure the coast was clear, so she peeked around the corner. [2 independent clauses joined by the coordinating conjunction "so"]

She peeked around the corner, because she wanted to make sure the coast was clear. [independent clause followed by a subordinate clause beginning with subordinating conjunction "because"]

But I think your version is better than either of these. It flows better, and it's clear.