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
Hello antopuglia
People do indeed use participle clauses in this way -- the sentences you suggest are fine -- but most writers and editors try to avoid them, especially when they are ambiguous or otherwise confusing. It's also important to note that these forms are fairly formal and so quite unusual in everyday use.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Kosi
Whether this sentence is correct depends on the context it's used in, so I'm afraid I can't say for sure. If, for example, you started working with Access in June 2019 and are saying this sentence in October 2019 and speaking about June 2020, then the correct way to say it would be 'By June next year, I will have been working with Access for one year.'
You might want to take a look at our 'will have' and 'would have' page for an explanation of this grammar.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi lexeus,
The sentence is fine. The verb 'appear' is part of a negative past tense form: 'didn't appear'.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi giangphan,
The clause here is a reduced relative clause:
The clause does not reference the noun 'acid rain', but rather the whole phrase 'a downward fluctuation in the amoun of acid rain'.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Leen
Often the two actions do occur simultaneously, and in general this is probably the first assumption to make, but that is not always necessarily the case. The participle form in itself doesn't specify the timing -- it's the context that makes the timing clear (or in some cases ambiguous). In the example you cite from this page, it makes sense that the walking and the shouting occurred simultaneously and that's how I and I'm sure most people would understand the sentence.
Yes, 2 and 3 mean the same as 1, and yes, 'having' is optional in 3 because the context already makes it clear that the working occurred before the test. But there is nothing wrong with using 'having' here; if you wanted to be very precise, for example, in formal writing, that would be a better option. In informal speaking, however, it would sound more natural to say 2 instead of 3.
Sorry that we missed responding when you posted your first comment!
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi sam61,
The action described in the participle clause does not have to be ongoing. It simply has to have a present effect.
For example:
In this sentence the person may be still married now, but may equally be divorced or widowed. What is important is that he has the experience and knowledge which allows him to give good advice.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Mohsen,
We would probably keep the context in the sentence: Having made money when I was younger, I don't have...
Otherwise, you are correct. Well done!
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Risa warysha,
English-speaking is a compound adjective. In your example it modifies the noun country.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mitzi,
That does not look correct to me, though the sentence is not in context. You could use either 's or of, and I think 's is the most natural here:
Alternatively, you could use a phrase like ...once belonged to the monarchy.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi again monarchy10,
As I said in my earlier answer, there are two tense in English.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi monarchy110,
Modern English grammar recognises two tenses in English: past and present. Other verb forms involve aspect (perfect and continuous), mood (modal verbs) and voice (active and passive).
As to your question, we can't explain to you why someone (who we don't know) has chosen to include or not include certain things on a list they made. You need to ask the author of the list.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello egorkazakov12345,
I'm afraid the sentence is not grammatically correct. To make it correct, you need to remove 'for' and use a present perfect form, or else remove 'has' and use a participle:
The first version has no participle clause.
In the second version for is a preposition with the object 'the youth unemployment scheme reaching crisis point over the last few weeks'. The participle phrase 'reaching...' describes the noun 'the youth unemployment'.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi learner2018
In response to your first question, the phrase is actually 'have difficulty selling the bond', i.e. 'have difficulty' + verb-ing and yes, 'selling the bond' is the complement of the word 'difficulty' (though note that it's a noun instead of an adjective).
As for your second question, yes, it's possible to use 'in' in this and similar cases; it is a generally accepted usage and means the same thing.
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello monarchy110,
No, that is not correct. We do not use 'have' with the meaning of possession in participle clauses. You could simply use 'with', however: Is there anyone here with access to...?
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello monarchy110,
'Have' is used in many ways, often as a replacement for another verb (have a shower, have dinner etc).
We do not use 'have' for possession in participle clauses. Thus we would not say:
Rather, we would use 'who has' or 'owning' in each example.
However, the example you give is correct. I would suggest that the reason is that having here means not possessing but rather something like bringing or showing.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello ifencing,
This is not a term I use, but I believe the name refers to a particular kind of participle clause. You can read a discussion of the topic here:
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/105900/understanding-absolute-construction
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/152987/noun-being-adj-grammar-rule/152995#152995
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Momonoki,
In participle clauses, present participles have active meaning and past participles have passive meaning.
For example:
The present participle (destroying) is correct here because an active meaning is needed.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team