Participle phrases

[Britva415]

There must be a name for this kind of a construction:

He left the cabin, door slamming in behind him in the wind. The storm enveloped him, his cloak whipping about his knees.

I'm talking about those bolded phrases. Firstly of all, I'm interested in the technical term for when you continue a sentence by tacking on an independent clause, but with a different subject, and spelled in the continuous aspect with the participle of the verb, and without the typical auxiliary "be".

("The door is slamming," "his cloak is whipping" are the normal way to form the continuous aspect. The "to be" or another auxiliary verb is an inherent part of it.)

So what we seem to have here is something which takes the place/position of an independent clause, but is different from that because it contains its own subject separate from the original sentence's subject, and which bastardizes the continuous aspect by dropping the auxiliary verb and using a naked participle (the "-ing" form of the verb).

Except that it's so common that, descriptively, it isn't a bastardization at all, it's just a way people use the language, which is what makes me think there must be a name for it.

Once we identify the technical grammatical term, maybe we can then discuss using it (or not) in our writing - good, bad or indifferent. But let's concentrate on the grammar analysis first.

What's that called? References appreciated.

 

[anthrodisiac]

As far as I can tell, these are absolute phrases. https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/absolute-phrase.htm

 

[SmilingLez]

Compound - complex

 

[BeechLeaf]

It's a verbless clause. There's a subject and a complement, but no finite verb linking them. You've used examples where the complement is a participial phrase, but other structures are also common:

Dinner over, they retired to the drawing room.
He walked down the road, his hands in his pockets.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language's chapter 14 on non-finite and verbless clauses goes for 100 pages, but I can't easily find a specific discussion of this participial subclass.

 

[TheLobster]

I wouldn't say that these phrases are common in the way people are using the language in general. They are just ubiquitous in prose, probably because they facilitate variation in sentence structure and deft inclusion of short and snappy pieces of extra description or action.

Functionally, those clauses actually seem like adverbs to me, insofar that they attach to the verb of the main clause, c.f. the alteration of OP's second example:

The storm enveloped him, swiftly like a lashing cobra.

They are just very complex and compound adverbs, in the same manner where some clauses act as very complex and compound nouns, e.g.

He couldn't believe Alice.

He couldn't believe that Alice had the audacity to spew such rank nonsense about grammar.

Maybe they are indeed called absolute phrases, like @anthrodisiac suggests, but honestly that name is so non-descriptive that I'm sure we can come up with a better one

 

[anthrodisiac]

I wouldn't say that these phrases are common in the way people are using the language in general. They are just ubiquitous in prose, probably because they facilitate variation in sentence structure and deft inclusion of short and snappy pieces of extra description or action.

Functionally, those clauses actually seem like adverbs to me, insofar that they attach to the verb of the main clause, c.f. the alteration of OP's second example:



They are just very complex and compound adverbs, in the same manner where some clauses act as very complex and compound nouns, e.g.




Maybe they are indeed called absolute phrases, like @anthrodisiac suggests, but honestly that name is so non-descriptive that I'm sure we can come up with a better one

Nobody could accuse me of enjoying any of the terms that grammar uses for these things

 

[BeechLeaf]

We need to distinguish the internal structure of a phrase from the function it serves in the larger clause. Vague names like 'adverbial' capture a function but don't say much. So for example:

(1) The storm enveloped him, his cloak whipping about his knees.
(2) The storm enveloped him, whipping up his cloak.
(3) The storm enveloped him, dark and foreboding.
(4) The storm enveloped him, as lightning flashed and threatened.

All of these have a subordinate structure modifying the main clause in essentially the same way. The subordinate phrase can be a verbless clause (1), a verb phrase (participial phrase) (2), an adjective phrase (3), a preposition phrase (4) with a full clause as complement of the preposition*, and no doubt others too could easily be found.

* traditionally conjunction, but CGEL rejects that analysis.

 

[TheLobster]

To push the bikeshedding discussion forward, my vote goes to 'adverbial clause' (to distinguish it from 'adverbial phrase' such as the one I provided in the previous post; and just 'adverb' as a single word).

As for whether these things are good or bad in writing... Well, there are one of few things, at least to me, that clearly and unambiguously mark the text as a piece of creative writing and/or prose. Outside of a few fixed expressions, like "guns blazing", I can't say I've seen adverbial clauses much in non-literary texts and even less so have I heard them in speech.

Which means that the moment you start using them, you are basically clueing in all readers that you're doing capital-W Writing. It is by no means a bad thing, writing is full of conventions (e.g. speech tags), but if you're going for a very informal style or voice in 1P, you might want to dispense with this kind of clauses or maybe just make them full sentences.

 

[Britva415]

It's a verbless clause. There's a subject and a complement, but no finite verb linking them. You've used examples where the complement is a participial phrase, but other structures are also common:

Dinner over, they retired to the drawing room.
He walked down the road, his hands in his pockets.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language's chapter 14 on non-finite and verbless clauses goes for 100 pages, but I can't easily find a specific discussion of this participial subclass.

The examples I gave were not verbless.

 

[Britva415]

To push the bikeshedding discussion forward, my vote goes to 'adverbial clause'

Well, the whole "adverbial" thing was a tangent. The adverbial example was only given by re-writing mine. In mine, the clause is basically an entire stand-alone sentence, except with that weird bit about dropping the auxiliary verb from the participle conveying the continuous aspect.

I think @anthrodisiac has provided the best answer so far. And with a citation, so

 

[BeechLeaf]

There's no finite verb linking them. The gerund-participle (ing-form of a verb) is internal to the complement. They are structurally much like the others.

 

[Britva415]

There's no finite verb linking them. The gerund-participle (ing-form of a verb) is internal to the complement. They are structurally much like the others.

That's not a gerund.

A gerund would be something like "the whipping (of the cloak)."

Gerunding is making a verb a noun. This is one of the things the "-ing" suffix can do, but it does more things than just gerunding. Inflecting a verb to continuous aspect is the other mahjor thing "-ing" does. It's just that that usually comes with an auxiliary verb.

Here is one of my examples re-written without dropping the auxiliary verb:

(As) the storm enveloped him, his cloak (was) whipping about his knees.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Again I refer to the CGEL. The traditional distinction between 'gerund' and 'present participle' does not accurately describe English grammar. The CGEL uses the term 'gerund-participle' for the ing-form of a verb. It can have either noun grammar or verb grammar:

the sudden breaking of the window
suddenly breaking the window

A noun is modified by an article and an adjective but can't take an object, so it has to use the prepositional 'of' construction. A verb is modified by an adverb, can take an object, but can't take an article. That's the actual difference in English constructions.

 

[NotWise]

I think @anthrodisiac is right.

While those sentences are probably grammatically correct, using that construction is a style choice I probably wouldn't make. That's especially true in the first case, where the comma could simply be dropped to get a more direct construction.

 

[Britva415]

Again I refer to the CGEL. The traditional distinction between 'gerund' and 'present participle' does not accurately describe English grammar. The CGEL uses the term 'gerund-participle' for the ing-form of a verb. It can have either noun grammar or verb grammar:

the sudden breaking of the window
suddenly breaking the window

A noun is modified by an article and an adjective but can't take an object, so it has to use the prepositional 'of' construction. A verb is modified by an adverb, can take an object, but can't take an article. That's the actual difference in English constructions.

Well

CGEL is just calling two different words spelled the same way one thing because they're spelled the same way. They're talking about the way the spelling of these two different things is derived. They aren't saying that a gerund is the same thing as a participle, they're just saying they share a common spelled form.

Beyond that, CGEL's 100 pages of "verbless clauses" isn't going to catch this because the clause isn't verbless. It's literally saying "the cloak was whipping," "the door did slam," just without the "was" and the "did." Dropping the auxiliary verb doesn't make the (gerund-)participle not-a-verb, here.

 

[Britva415]

the comma could simply be dropped to get a more direct construction

Not sure what was meant by "the first case."

"He left the cabin door slamming in behind him in the wind?"

That's a whole different meaning.
Were you thinking of something different?

 

[Britva415]

While those sentences are probably grammatically correct, using that construction is a style choice I probably wouldn't make.

We're getting there I guess that what I was hoping was that we could figure out how to talk about this totally unambiguously, so that we could just talk about this one thing and not about gerunding and dangling participles and other unrelated constructions - which is probably inevitable anyway but at least can be called out as "off topic" if we are real clear on what the topic is.

 

[anthrodisiac]

We're getting there I guess that what I was hoping was that we could figure out how to talk about this totally unambiguously, so that we could just talk about this one thing and not about gerunding and dangling participles and other unrelated constructions - which is probably inevitable anyway but at least can be called out as "off topic" if we are real clear on what the topic is.

...you've met us, right?

 

[SimonDoom]

Anthrodisiac is correct. It's an absolute phrase. It's not a clause, because it doesn't contain a verb.

It's grammatically correct. Both of the examples given by the OP are fine.

An absolute phrase is a group of words that (a) do not constitute a clause because they do not form a subject+verb construction, and (b) modify an entire clause rather than a specific word in a clause. They often contain participles, but not always.

Look at OP's example 2:

The storm enveloped him, his cloak whipping about his knees.

This is an absolute phrase.

Now look at this example:

The storm enveloped him, quickly lowering his body temperature.

This is an adverbial phrase. The phrase after the comma modifies the verb "enveloped."

 

[XerXesXu]

UGLY is the word. Don't do it.

 

[liliput1]

Nobody could accuse me of enjoying any of the terms that grammar uses for these things

Why does Oxford get credit for an entire fucking comma?

 

[EmilyMiller]

Why does Oxford get credit for an entire fucking comma?

Couldn’t love this Wes Anderson homage more:

 

[liliput1]

I think @anthrodisiac is right.

While those sentences are probably grammatically correct, using that construction is a style choice I probably wouldn't make. That's especially true in the first case, where the comma could simply be dropped to get a more direct construction.

Your normal tone would avoid those choices, but if you're looking for a certain aesthetic you could be breaking a lot of your own rules.

Sooner or later a lot of authors try to do a period piece or even channel Jane Austen and then all bets are off.

 

[liliput1]

Couldn’t love this Wes Anderson homage more:

THEY USED THE GUN IN ACT 2! NOT ALLOWED!

 

[Britva415]

Anthrodisiac is correct. It's an absolute phrase. It's not a clause, because it doesn't contain a verb.


An absolute phrase is a group of words that (a) do not constitute a clause because they do not form a subject+verb construction, and (b) modify an entire clause rather than a specific word in a clause. They often contain participles, but not always.

I'm inclined to disagree, but maybe I'm just uninformed. Educate me: How are "slamming" and "whipping" not verbs, in the examples given? They certainly aren't gerunds.