Present participial phrases

RemusShepherd said:

I want a second opinion on something I read today over at Romance University. The editor there claims that good writers avoid present participial phrases because they almost never used correctly.

Click to expand...

Don't know about that, and the example isn't necessarily great writing, but it's not incorrect.

The problem is that the phrase starting with 'reassuring' is an adjective that should modify 'reached', but it is next to 'pocket' and seems to modify that.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't. A reader might think it does (which is why phrases that risk confusing a reader should be avoided), but it clearly modifies the action.

Consider these examples:

Serena reached into her cloak pocket, touching her hourglass.

Click to expand...

Serena reached into her cloak pocket, feeling foolish.

Click to expand...

Serena reached into her cloak pocket, shivering.

Click to expand...

Are they confusing? Does "shivering" or "feeling foolish" seem to modify "pocket"? Yet grammatically, they are exactly the same construct, just shorter and simpler.

I think the issue with the example cited is that it introduces an entire secondary clause. Stylistically, doing that with a present participial may not always be the best choice. Avoid wordiness and complicated grammatical constructions unless you're really sure that's what you want to do. But if it works, it's not wrong.

I would agree with the editor in that case, but your original is perfectly correct. I think it's more of matter of personal preference and sound.

I agree with the editor here, but I think the talk of participial phrases is a bit of a red herring.

Your version suggests she reached into her pocket as a result of or while reassuring herself (not in order to). If you swap the sentence around, you'll see what I mean.

Reassuring herself that the second hourglass was tucked inside, Serena reached into her cloak pocket.

I agree with the editor. If there's more than one way to read something, you're in trouble, and present participle phrases, even when used correctly, can often lead to misunderstanding.

I wouldn't say never use one, but I would say use them sparingly, read them three times, and then decide.

But I also think such usage is most often lazy writing. It's just the way a sentence goes down without thought, usually from habit. Not good.

linked article said:

Good writers shun this structure

Click to expand...

I don't really appreciate judgments like that. I think this is how we get the "rules" everyone is always so afraid to violate. I would think "good" writers know how to use PPPs to the best effect, rather than avoid them altogether.

But, for the same reason Kenn mentioned, I do like

Serena reached into her cloak pocket to reassure herself that the second hourglass was tucked inside.

Click to expand...

better than

Serena reached into her cloak pocket, reassuring herself that the second hourglass was tucked inside.

Click to expand...

The intent implied by the construction is different in each case. I tend to think of a lot of actions modified by PPPs (this case included) as happening sort of serendipitously alongside the modified action. (I probably just made no sense whatsoever.)

It's like, in the "reassuring" version, she reached into her pocket (for no apparent reason) and because her hand was in there, she also happened to be reassured. In the "to reassure" version, her action is prompted by the need to be reassured. The "to" implies an intent in action the original version just doesn't. PPP isn't wrong by nature, but I don't think it's the correct structure to use for this specific purpose, which seems to be illustrated by your trouble with moving it closer to the actor.

Reassuring herself that the second hourglass was tucked inside, Serena reached into her cloak pocket.

Click to expand...

That's the general fix for a far-out modifier, but it clearly doesn't work because, while the syntax itself looks correct, the order of the actions is all wrong. There's an obvious intent-to-action sequence that's lost here. "To reasure" herself, she would reach into her pocket, but it's not exactly simultaneous action.

Despite that, I hardly ever get confused about what the PPP is modifying if punctuation is involved. Commas clarify a lot.

Consider (however awkward)

She followed the stranger, tiptoeing through the shadows of the market.

Click to expand...

(Though, "Tiptoing through the shadows of the market, she followed the stranger" would put the PPP close to the actor.)

vs.

She followed the stranger tipoeing through the shadows of the market.

Click to expand...

Looks like I'm in the minority on this one. I preferred the first sentence to the second. I understood the first to mean she put her hand in her pocket to reassure herself. Perhaps the word "reached" played a role in this being clear--reached seems to me to be intentional--if she merely "put her hand in her pocket," then maybe it would be unclear whether she did so for the purpose of reassuring herself.

For me, the first sentence kept the action flowing, but the second one, with the inserted "to," stopped the action and seemed more like a fact was being stated. I'm reminded of how earlier today I was going through a novel taking out unnecessary "that's." Some "that's" are needed to make the meaning clear, but others just block up the flow and need to be chopped. Seems to me "to reassure" rather than "reassuring" does the same thing.

I don't see any grammatical error in this sentence.

Serena reached into her cloak pocket, reassuring herself that the second hourglass was tucked inside.

Click to expand...

I think the presence of the reflexive pronoun in the participial phrase makes it clear that Sarah, not the cloak pocket, is doing the reassuring. I read this sentence as two things happening simultaneously: as Sarah reaches into her pocket, she is also reassuring herself that she'll find the second hourglass is there. It seems likely to me the next sentence would either express relief when her hand closes on the hourglass or horror when her pocket turns out to be empty.
If that's not what the writer meant to say, then there's a problem, but I don't think its a grammatical one.

Ketzel said:

I don't see any grammatical error in this sentence.

Click to expand...

It isn't grammatically incorrect. Which is far from saying that it's well-expressed. Try this:

Serena reached into her cloak pocket. The second hourglass was tucked inside.

Clauses linked by present-participle phrases commonly just need to be separate sentences. PP phrases often are imprecise, and often enough are misleading. Evaluate on that basis whether or not they function well.

caw

blacbird said:

Serena reached into her cloak pocket. The second hourglass was tucked inside.

Clauses linked by present-participle phrases commonly just need to be separate sentences. PP phrases often are imprecise, and often enough are misleading. Evaluate on that basis whether or not they function well.

Click to expand...

Your version reads better, but I still don't think writers should go separating their clauses on the sole basis of "writers should avoid PPPs." (I realize your post doesn't say that). I'm all for separating clauses when doing so both enhances readability and maintains the same intent as the PPP construction. For example, your rewrite highlights the facts of the action but loses the emotional aspect of Serena needing to reassure herself.

When writers (or editors) are judging whether their PPPs are clear and precise, they should also be determining whether rewriting conveys the same tone. Tone and emotion as so very important in narrative, and I hate when writers rip it out because they feel the need to sacrifice it to a "rule."

"Reassuring" is not an adjective--it's a particple and part of a participle phrase. Since it modifies Serena, the subject of the sentence , it is fine. Authors use such construction all the time--as long as it's used correctly, there's nothing wrong with it.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with it on a technical level, but it's weak writing. To see why, think about what's really being said and how it's being said.

Original: "Serena reached into her cloak pocket, reassuring herself that the second hourglass was tucked inside."

This sentence really combines two distinct sentences: "Serena reached into her cloak pocket. She was reassuring herself that the second hourglass was tucked inside."

But writing it that way sounds stilted. Also, the second sentence may be a little too much of telling rather than showing. In order to hide the stilted quality of the second sentence, some writers will meld the second sentence into the first using a participial, the way your original sentence is.

I think a lot of good writers would avoid a sentence like that. Here's one way to make it sound less stilted and to get rid of that telling problem:

"Serena reached into her cloak pocket. The second hourglass was tucked inside." (Here, we let the reader figure out that the reason why she reached into her pocket was to reassure herself. No need to tell the readers that outright.)

EDIT: I see that Blacbird said already said the same thing I did.

Jamesaritchie said:

I agree with the editor. If there's more than one way to read something, you're in trouble, and present participle phrases, even when used correctly, can often lead to misunderstanding.

I wouldn't say never use one, but I would say use them sparingly, read them three times, and then decide.

But I also think such usage is most often lazy writing. It's just the way a sentence goes down without thought, usually from habit. Not good.

Click to expand...

I tend to go with this one. "Reassuring herself," and other such phrases are often less specific than the alternatives, such as "to reassure herself." They tell you that A and B happened at the same time, but they don't always explain the relationship between them. I know you often, as a reader, get it anyway, but it's not the clearest way.

Jamesaritchie said:

I agree with the editor. If there's more than one way to read something, you're in trouble, and present participle phrases, even when used correctly, can often lead to misunderstanding.

I wouldn't say never use one, but I would say use them sparingly, read them three times, and then decide.

But I also think such usage is most often lazy writing. It's just the way a sentence goes down without thought, usually from habit. Not good.

Click to expand...

Yes to all of this, and I'll add that much of the time, tagging a participial clause to a sentence, in the manner of the OP example, leads to "explainy" writing. Student writing and manuscripts from inexperienced writers I've critiqued commonly suffer simply from too much explaining, and not enough narrating. And it makes for wordiness as well. In the example given, we (the readers) really don't need to be told that she reached into her pocket to reassure herself about the hourglass, especially if the contextual importance of the hourglass has already been established.

caw

I don't see the problem. The phrase gives us more information about her reaching into her pocket. To reasure herself means the same thing as reasuring herself.

Architectus said:

I don't see the problem. The phrase gives us more information about her reaching into her pocket. To reasure herself means the same thing as reasuring herself.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

brianjanuary said:

"Reassuring" is not an adjective--it's a particple and part of a participle phrase.

Click to expand...

Agreed.


Participle adjectives:


She was very reassuring. (If the -ing can be modified by an adverb, it's being used as an adjective).

I'm going (periphial) adverbial on the op's example, and as Architectus said, it's more supplmentary (aspect) info.

As for which non-finite is better -ing v to-clause. To-clause is limited really to purpose, but as the adverbial seems to be doing the same.... I'd rather go: stylistic issue with this particular example.

Architectus said:

I don't see the problem. The phrase gives us more information about her reaching into her pocket. To reasure herself means the same thing as reasuring herself.

Click to expand...

Does it? What about, "Explaining herself?" She reached into her pocket, explaining herself to Max while she fingered the gun.

Or, back to reassuring. She reached into her pocket, reassuring herself with a glance back at Alec, and found the stone was gone!

bonitakale said:

Does it? What about, "Explaining herself?" She reached into her pocket, explaining herself to Max while she fingered the gun.

Or, back to reassuring. She reached into her pocket, reassuring herself with a glance back at Alec, and found the stone was gone!

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Boni (bad night with the bab), but I can't see what it is you're saying.


The semantic relation will change if you alter the info in either main or supplement. In yours, one's portraying a mental state 'reassuring' herself, the other is verbal 'explaining', but you've changed the rest of the contextual info.


I think architectus is looking at the to / -ing clauses / reflexive pronoun in isolation:


To reassure herself
Reassuring herself


Or with yours:


To explain it to him
Explaining it to him.

Fallen said:

I'm sorry, Boni (bad night with the bab), but I can't see what it is you're saying.

Click to expand...

The to-infinitive and the participle don't generally mean the same thing. The present participle phrase signals an action taking place, while the to-infinitive signals intent.

YES: She reached into her pocket to reassure herself that the second hourglass was still there, but it was gone.

NO: She reached into her pocket, reassuring herself that the second hourglass was still there, but it was gone.

That is: with the present participle it's explicit that the reassuring actually happened. With the to-infinitive it isn't. If nothing follows about the presence/absence of the hourglass, I'd assume it was still there. But that's pragmatics: I infer that because "presence" is the default expectation. It's a manner of style: I personally would feel I'd have to precise, so leaving out the actual state of the hourglass would feel like an omission to me. This is why I like blacbird's edit better than the editor's.

I personally would just leave the present participle phrase as it is. It's perfectly fine with me, and I'd guess it's very hard to misundertand.

I'm so glad I stumbled upon this thread. Personally, I'm not a fan of short, clipped sentences in reading or writing and would prefer to read the examples cited above as one sentence rather than two.
What I struggle with is something similar to the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" syndrome.
As an example:
Adam halted his frantic pacing, breathing in wispy snatches of air.
Breathing in wispy snatches of air, Adam halted his frantic pacing.
Quality of the writing aside, is the order of one sentence better than the other and if so, why? Is it a knowledge that's gained through experience or something a writer just "knows"?

Dawnstorm said:

and I'd guess it's very hard to misundertand.

Click to expand...

I think that happens a lot with -ing clauses in general.

evangaline said:

I'm so glad I stumbled upon this thread. Personally, I'm not a fan of short, clipped sentences in reading or writing and would prefer to read the examples cited above as one sentence rather than two.
What I struggle with is something similar to the "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" syndrome.
As an example:
Adam halted his frantic pacing, breathing in wispy snatches of air.
Breathing in wispy snatches of air, Adam halted his frantic pacing.
Quality of the writing aside, is the order of one sentence better than the other and if so, why? Is it a knowledge that's gained through experience or something a writer just "knows"?

Click to expand...

I'd put them as close as possible to the order in which they happen. They are simultaneous, but hardly any two things are precisely simultaneous. One may begin or end after the other.

Or, one may apply to the next sentence more, and thus should be put last.

Breathing in wispy snatches of air, Adam halted his frantic pacing and turned to face Eileen.

Adam halted his frantic pacing, breathing in wispy snatches of air. He waited till he got his breath back and said,....

evangaline said:

Quality of the writing aside, is the order of one sentence better than the other and if so, why? Is it a knowledge that's gained through experience or something a writer just "knows"?

Click to expand...

To add to Boni's...

The easiest answer is that you go by ear, that's because you've already been exposed to how a sentence works best without even knowing the technicalities behind why.




So going by ear, sometimes if you choose the beginning of a sentence (and there are many reasons why you can), sometimes it's setting the scene for what's to come in the main clause:


Whistling 'don't stop me now', she tripped.


Has more ironic impact than:


She tripped, whistling 'don't stop me now'.


Sometimes you choose the end because you're simply adding new circumstance info:


They shouted and jeered at Nick Clegg, mocking the the lib dem for kissing ass with the conservatives.



Sometimes it's to do with cohesion and the information-flow principle.


Putting it more simply, don't do it, dufus.


That last one is more style adverbial and links back to what was previous said, thus seting up for what's then to come in the main clause:


You know full well that if it's hot, little pegs get burned. Putting it more simply, don't do it, dufus.

'Putting it more' simply is referring both back (to 'you know full well) and forward (don't do it....), so it's acting as a cohesive device (glueing the writing together).

brianjanuary said:

"Reassuring" is not an adjective--it's a particple and part of a participle phrase. Since it modifies Serena, the subject of the sentence , it is fine. Authors use such construction all the time--as long as it's used correctly, there's nothing wrong with it.

Click to expand...

To my understanding this issue in using it correctly is that the actions have to be simultaneous. The best example is like this:

Fred unlocked the door, letting himself out of the room.

It is not physically possible for Fred to unlock the door and let himself out of the room simultaneously.

Fred scrambled to find the wrench, cussing at his clumsiness.

He can curse and scramble at the same time.

Past or present this is true - the two verbs have to be simultaneous. So she can reach into her pocket and reassure herself at the same time.

Bufty peeped in, leaving because of not following what him reading.

Bit about reaching into pocket and reassuring oneself at same time ring bells like Confucius saying.