Look at these examples to see how participle clauses are used.
Looked after carefully, these boots will last for many years.
Not wanting to hurt his feelings, I avoided the question.
Having lived through difficult times together, they were very close friends.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
Grammar explanation
Participle clauses enable us to say information in a more economical way. They are formed using present participles (going, reading, seeing, walking, etc.), past participles (gone, read, seen, walked, etc.) or perfect participles (having gone, having read, having seen, having walked, etc.).
We can use participle clauses when the participle and the verb in the main clause have the same subject. For example,
Waiting for Ellie, I made some tea. (While I was waiting for Ellie, I made some tea.)
Participle clauses do not have a specific tense. The tense is indicated by the verb in the main clause.
Participle clauses are mainly used in written texts, particularly in a literary, academic or journalistic style.
Present participle clauses
Here are some common ways we use present participle clauses. Note that present participles have a similar meaning to active verbs.
- To give the result of an action
The bomb exploded, destroying the building. - To give the reason for an action
Knowing she loved reading, Richard bought her a book. - To talk about an action that happened at the same time as another action
Standing in the queue, I realised I didn't have any money. - To add information about the subject of the main clause
Starting in the new year, the new policy bans cars in the city centre.
Past participle clauses
Here are some common ways that we use past participle clauses. Note that past participles normally have a passive meaning.
- With a similar meaning to an if condition
Used in this way, participles can make your writing more concise. (If you use participles in this way, … ) - To give the reason for an action
Worried by the news, she called the hospital. - To add information about the subject of the main clause
Filled with pride, he walked towards the stage.
Perfect participle clauses
Perfect participle clauses show that the action they describe was finished before the action in the main clause. Perfect participles can be structured to make an active or passive meaning.
Having got dressed, he slowly went downstairs.
Having finished their training, they will be fully qualified doctors.
Having been made redundant, she started looking for a new job.
Participle clauses after conjunctions and prepositions
It is also common for participle clauses, especially with -ing, to follow conjunctions and prepositions such as before, after, instead of, on, since, when, while and in spite of.
Before cooking, you should wash your hands.
Instead of complaining about it, they should try doing something positive.
On arriving at the hotel, he went to get changed.
While packing her things, she thought about the last two years.
In spite of having read the instructions twice, I still couldn’t understand how to use it.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Thank you very much, Kirk !
It is very clear now.
Hudi Parikenan.
Hello The LearningEnglish team,
I have some questions about reducing relative clause with participle clause.
1) Can we reduce a non-defining relative clause? For example:
a1> The house, built in 1883, has just been opened to the public.
a2> Alice, working in Brussels and London ever since leaving Edinburgh, will be starting a teaching course in the autumn.
Or we have to write out the full clause:
b1>The house, which was built in 1883, has jut been opened to the public.
b2> Alice, who has worked in Brussels and London ever since leaving Edinburgh, will be starting a teaching course in the autumn.
In these examples, if <a1> and <a2> are possible, can we use it in writing, especially in formal contexts?
2) In this example:
> The bomb exploded, destroying the whole building.
Can we replace the participle clause ('destroying...') with 'which' that refers to the whole previous clause ('The bomb exploded')?
> The bomb exploded, which destroyed the whole building.
If so, can we say that we have used the participle clause to reduce the which-clause?
Between a participle clause and 'which' (refers to a previous clause), which is preferred in writing (more formal contexts).
Look forward to your answers.
Hieu Nguyen
Hello Hieu Nguyen,
Both a1 and a2 are perfectly acceptable in both written and spoken English.
I dislike the term 'reduced relative clause', to be honest. Grammatically speaking, it's a misnomer. The correct way to think about these sentences is not that you are taking a relative clause and reducing it, but rather that you are choosing between two possible clauses: a relative clause and a participle (-ed or -ing) clause. Thus, the real question is not 'Can relative clauses be reduced?' but 'Is it possible to use participle clauses here?'
In your second example both the relative clause and the participle clause are correct. I don't think either is more preferable in written English. Rather, it's a question of personal style, consistency within the text and rhetorical effect.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Mr. Peter,
While waiting for the answers, I did some research myself and I'm aware that the term "reduced relative clause" is a misnomer. But honestly, I've never thought the issue could be easily resolved by making the problem become the choice between a relative clause and a participle clause . Your answer really gave me a different perspective on this topic. I really thank you for that!
However, there's still something bothering me. I came across this article on the Cambridge blog. (https://www.cambridge.org/elt/blog/2015/10/10/grammar-beyond-7/)
In the article, the author argues that "it is not usually grammatical to reduce non-identifying adjective clauses when the verb is in the continuous form (is studying) or passive (is built).", which means sentences like these would be incorrect:
a> Lynn, studying chemistry, wants to become a doctor.
b> My parents' house, damaged in the hurricane, was a complete disaster.
Instead, he said that we should "reduce non-identifying adjective clause" if "the reduction" create an appositive clause (that is, a clause which essentially gives another name to the noun it modifies), as in:
c> Lynn, (who is) my neighbour, is studying chemistry.
d> My parents' house, (which is) located near the beach, survived the hurricane.
To be honest, I don't see much difference between his 4 examples. I think we can kind of "reduce" all of them as you said.
Also, I've found some more examples in the "Oxford Guide to English Grammar by John Eastwood, section 276" supporting your explanation:
e> To Robin, sunbathing on the beach, all his problems seemed far away.
f> The first British TV commercial, broadcast in 1955, was for toothpaste.
The question here is that was the author of the article wrong? And we can always use a "participle clause" or an "adjective/adverbial phrase" or an "appositive" in the place of a full relative clause, can't we?
Hieu Nguyen
Hello again Hieu Nguyen,
I don't think the author is wrong as they hedge their comment with 'usually', making it a description of what is common or typical rather than a fixed rule. I think what they say is correct. For example, while both of these sentences are grammatically possible, the second is preferable in terms of style and convention:
1) Lynn, studying chemistry, wants to become a doctor.
2) Lynn, a chemistry student, wants to become a doctor.
I think the -ing clause is more common when we are describing an action in progress. In other words sentence 1 seems clumsy to me while sentence 2 is perfectly fine:
1) Lynn, studying chemistry, wants to become a doctor.
2) To Robin, sunbathing on the beach, all his problems seemed far away.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Mr. Peter,
Thank you for your explanation, I fully understand it now.
Have a good day, sir!
1.While Taking a cup of coffee, My Grand father told us a story about his visit to Mussoorie.
sir, Can I drop "While"??
and rewrite this sentence above in this way--- [ Taking a cup of coffee, My grand father told us a story about his visit to Mussoorie OR My grand father, taking a cup of coffee, told us a story about his visit to Mussoorie.]
2. My dog snores while sleeping.
Can I drop "While" in this sentence too??
and, Rewrite it in this way ----[My dog snores sleeping OR Sleeping, My dog snores].
Please do reply!!🙏🙏
Hello Gopal,
Yes, you could drop 'while' and yes, you could rewrite the sentence as you suggest. I would use a different style, but these are all fine grammatically.
In the second sentence, I wouldn't rewrite the sentence in either of the ways you suggest.
As I think Peter and Jonathan have suggested, I'd recommend you analyse participle clauses that you find in your reading or listening as a way to learn how they are used.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Sir, Can you suggest me your way to write these sentences?
Please reply!!🙏🙏
Hello Gopal,
How exactly I'd write them would depend on the context, but for the first one I might say: My grandfather had a cup of coffee and told us about his visit to Mussoorie.
Your first version of the second sentence ('My dog snores while sleeping') is fine, or I might just say 'My dog snores', since snoring implies one is sleeping.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team