Last week's posting defined the present participle, discussed the present participle's function in a sentence, and pointed out one common mistake in usage - placing present participle or participial phrase so that it modifies the wrong word in the sentence. The other common mistake in the use of participial phrases involves time order.
When a present participial phrase is used in a sentence, the writer indicates that the action in the participial phrase is occurring at the same time as the action in the main clause of the sentence. A writer must understand this time implication in order to use present participial phrases correctly.
Incorrect:
Walking into the room, he helped himself to a large plate of food from the buffet. [He has to walk into the room before he can help himself to a plate of food.]
Zipping herself into her sleeping bag, she snored all night long. [She has to zip herself in before she falls asleep and snores.]
Correct:
Smiling broadly, Georgia shook hands with the President. [The smiling and shaking hands are occurring at the same time.]
Shouting at the top of his lungs, Ralph raced after the pickpocket. [Although Ralph could shout before he races after the pickpocket, the use of the present participial phrase informs the reader that he is shouting while he is racing after the pickpocket.]
In Brief: Do not use a present participial phrase unless the action in the phrase is happening at the same time as the action in the main clause.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The perils of present participles: Part I
The present participle of a verb is formed by adding -ing to the present form of the verb. Present participles can be used as adjectives to modify or describe persons, places, or things.
The crying baby annoyed all the other passengers on the plane. [The present participle crying modifies or describes the noun baby.]
Present participles can also be used to begin participial phrases, which consist of the participle and its object and/or modifiers. Like participles, participial phrases function as adjectives to modify nouns or pronouns.
Staring into the bathroom mirror, Janelle touched up her eye makeup. [The participial phrase "staring into the bathroom mirror" modifies the noun Janelle.]
The old man and woman, remembering their wedding day, smiled at each other. [The participial phrase "remembering their wedding day" modifies the nouns man and woman.]
Mrs. LaRue was horrified to see the children darting heedlessly into the busy street. [The participial phrase "darting heedlessly into the busy street" modifies the noun children.]
Note:
Writing instructors stress the importance of varying the types of sentences used within a paragraph. This is important in non-fiction as well as in fiction. Beginning a sentence with a participial phrase can be an effective way of doing that, as long as it is done infrequently and as long as the present participial phrase is used correctly.
Using present participial phrases correctly can be tricky, so beginning writers are often advised to avoid using them at all.
One common error occurs when the participial phrase is placed so that it modifies the wrong noun.
Incorrect:
Having been thoroughly instructed in the safety procedures, Mr. Williams let us begin the science experiment. [This sentence is incorrect because Mr. Williams (the subject) is the one who did the instructing, not the one who received the instruction.]
Possible corrections:
Keeping the participial phrase unchanged: Having been thoroughly instructed in the safety procedures, we were allowed to begin the science experiment.
Changing the sentence to eliminate the participial phrase: After he had thoroughly instructed us in the safety procedures, Mr. Williams let us begin the science experiment.
In Brief: A participial phrase that begins a sentence must modify the subject of the sentence. Participial phrases used elsewhere in the sentence must modify the nouns or pronouns that precede them.
The crying baby annoyed all the other passengers on the plane. [The present participle crying modifies or describes the noun baby.]
Staring into the bathroom mirror, Janelle touched up her eye makeup. [The participial phrase "staring into the bathroom mirror" modifies the noun Janelle.]
The old man and woman, remembering their wedding day, smiled at each other. [The participial phrase "remembering their wedding day" modifies the nouns man and woman.]
Mrs. LaRue was horrified to see the children darting heedlessly into the busy street. [The participial phrase "darting heedlessly into the busy street" modifies the noun children.]
Note:
- When a participial phrase begins the sentence, it modifies the subject.
- A participial phrase in the middle of the sentence is set off by comas and follows the noun or pronoun it modifies.
- A participial phrase at the end of the sentence modifies the noun or pronoun it follows.
Writing instructors stress the importance of varying the types of sentences used within a paragraph. This is important in non-fiction as well as in fiction. Beginning a sentence with a participial phrase can be an effective way of doing that, as long as it is done infrequently and as long as the present participial phrase is used correctly.
Using present participial phrases correctly can be tricky, so beginning writers are often advised to avoid using them at all.
One common error occurs when the participial phrase is placed so that it modifies the wrong noun.
Incorrect:
Having been thoroughly instructed in the safety procedures, Mr. Williams let us begin the science experiment. [This sentence is incorrect because Mr. Williams (the subject) is the one who did the instructing, not the one who received the instruction.]
Possible corrections:
Keeping the participial phrase unchanged: Having been thoroughly instructed in the safety procedures, we were allowed to begin the science experiment.
Changing the sentence to eliminate the participial phrase: After he had thoroughly instructed us in the safety procedures, Mr. Williams let us begin the science experiment.
In Brief: A participial phrase that begins a sentence must modify the subject of the sentence. Participial phrases used elsewhere in the sentence must modify the nouns or pronouns that precede them.
Labels:
grammar tips,
participial phrases,
participles,
writing tips
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Regarding relatives: using relative pronouns
Relative pronouns are used to introduce relative clauses. Relative clauses function as adjectives in sentences, which means that they describe or give more information about a noun or pronoun. Unlike adjectives, however, relative clauses follow the noun or pronoun they modify.
There are five relative pronouns: who, whom, whose, which, and that. The first two, who and whom, are used to refer to people or animals. The last two, which and that, are used to refer to places or things. Neither should be used to refer to people. Whose, the only possessive form, may be used to refer to either.
There are two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive.
Note that whether commas are used or not can actually indicate a difference in meaning of the same sentence.
The principal who sat at the head of the table proposed a toast. [Lack of commas implies that there are a number of principals sitting at the table; the clause identifies one in particular.]
The principal, who sat at the head of the table, proposed a toast. [The use of commas implies that only one principal is sitting at the table; therefore, mentioning his position at the table is not necessary to identify her or him.]
It is not vital to remember the names of the two types of relative clauses. What is important is knowing that commas are needed if the information in the clause is not necessary to identify the particular person, place, or thing the clause modifies.
In Brief: Use the relative pronouns who and whom to refer to people. Use commas before and after non-restrictive relative clauses.
There are five relative pronouns: who, whom, whose, which, and that. The first two, who and whom, are used to refer to people or animals. The last two, which and that, are used to refer to places or things. Neither should be used to refer to people. Whose, the only possessive form, may be used to refer to either.
There are two types of relative clauses: restrictive and non-restrictive.
- A relative clause is restrictive when it is necessary to identify the noun or pronoun it modifies. No commas are needed before or after a restrictive clause.
- A relative clause is non-restrictive when the information in the clause provides extra information but is not necessary to identify the person, place, or thing it modifies. Commas are needed before and after a non-restrictive clause.
Note that whether commas are used or not can actually indicate a difference in meaning of the same sentence.
The principal who sat at the head of the table proposed a toast. [Lack of commas implies that there are a number of principals sitting at the table; the clause identifies one in particular.]
The principal, who sat at the head of the table, proposed a toast. [The use of commas implies that only one principal is sitting at the table; therefore, mentioning his position at the table is not necessary to identify her or him.]
It is not vital to remember the names of the two types of relative clauses. What is important is knowing that commas are needed if the information in the clause is not necessary to identify the particular person, place, or thing the clause modifies.
In Brief: Use the relative pronouns who and whom to refer to people. Use commas before and after non-restrictive relative clauses.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Pick up the pace: rein in the intrusive narrator
As you all know, the narrator is the person or character who is telling the story, whether the story is fiction or non-fiction. While the narrator has a vital part in telling the story, an intrusive narrator can slow the pace of a piece of writing by interfering with the progress of the story. Intrusive narration also distances the reader from the story and reduces its impact.
The intrusive narrator is most commonly found in first-person narrative; however, a third-person limited narrator can also become intrusive. Since first-person and third-person limited narrators are inevitably involved in the story, just when does such a narrator become intrusive?
In the paragraph above, the phrases in blue type are examples of intrusive narration. None of them are necessary. In first-person and third-person limited narration, everything mentioned in the story is what the narrator sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels, thinks, surmises, etc. When "I saw," "I watched," "I heard," "I knew," and other similar phrases are frequently used in the narration, the narrator becomes intrusive.
Removal of these phrases in the revision below brings the reader right into the action and increases the tension in the scene.
The front door shut. Heavy footsteps pounded down the hall. When the study door opened, a tall, dark-haired man I didn't recognize paused in the doorway. I screamed as he strode toward me.
Not only does intrusive narration slow the pace and distance the reader from the action, it is also an insult to the reader's intelligence. The reader understands that everything in the narrator relates is something he or she experiences, so the narrator does not need to keep reminding the reader of this. An intrusive narrator becomes increasingly annoying.
In Brief: To rein in the intrusive narrator, check each instance that the narrator sees, watches, hears, feels, knows, or thinks something. If those phrases can be left out without changing the meaning of the sentence - if the seeing, hearing, etc. is not the point of the sentence - eliminate them.
The intrusive narrator is most commonly found in first-person narrative; however, a third-person limited narrator can also become intrusive. Since first-person and third-person limited narrators are inevitably involved in the story, just when does such a narrator become intrusive?
- A narrator becomes intrusive when she or he unnecessarily inserts herself/himself into the story.
In the paragraph above, the phrases in blue type are examples of intrusive narration. None of them are necessary. In first-person and third-person limited narration, everything mentioned in the story is what the narrator sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels, thinks, surmises, etc. When "I saw," "I watched," "I heard," "I knew," and other similar phrases are frequently used in the narration, the narrator becomes intrusive.
Removal of these phrases in the revision below brings the reader right into the action and increases the tension in the scene.
The front door shut. Heavy footsteps pounded down the hall. When the study door opened, a tall, dark-haired man I didn't recognize paused in the doorway. I screamed as he strode toward me.
Not only does intrusive narration slow the pace and distance the reader from the action, it is also an insult to the reader's intelligence. The reader understands that everything in the narrator relates is something he or she experiences, so the narrator does not need to keep reminding the reader of this. An intrusive narrator becomes increasingly annoying.
In Brief: To rein in the intrusive narrator, check each instance that the narrator sees, watches, hears, feels, knows, or thinks something. If those phrases can be left out without changing the meaning of the sentence - if the seeing, hearing, etc. is not the point of the sentence - eliminate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)