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
Hi lexeus,
Both terms are used to describe the forms on this page, and there is no commonly accepted correct term. Some people see these forms as a kind of non-finite clause (a clause with a non-finite verb form) while others see them as a participle phrase.
In terms of English language learning, which is the focus for this site, the term used to describe these forms is less important than the way in which they are used.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello lexeus,
We can see that the -ing form here is not the object because there already is an object before it: the object of the verb 'spent' is 'her evenings', and the participle 'watching' describes that noun.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi lexeus,
My apologies! In my last answer there was a mistake. The participle here does not describe 'her evenings' but rather qualifies the verb - it tells us how she spent those evenings. Therefore it does, as you say, have an adverbial function.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello lexeus,
We do not comment on the opinions expressed on other sites. The internet is full of sites with a wide of opinions on any topic you can think of, after all.
Participle clauses are one kind of non-finite clause and have an adverbial function. You can read more about different types of non-finite clause here. Sometimes a relative clause (which generally has an adjectival function, describing a noun) looks like a participle clause when it is reduced and this can be a source of confusion. However, participle clauses tell us, as the information on the page says, about condition, reason, result or time; reduced relative clauses give us descriptive information of some kind about the subject or object of the main clause.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Englishlover,
While we appreciate your eagerness to learn, I'm afraid it's not possible for us to answer so many questions! The comments sections on these pages are there in order to deal with brief comments about the material on our pages, not examples from other sources. We cannot provide English lessons in the comments sections, I am afraid, and the number of questions you are asking and the length of those questions means that this is what we would have to do.
There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is the fact that we are a small team and we have many thousands of users. For this kind of detailed one-to-one help you need to ask a teacher of your own.
We will, of course, be happy to deal with any brief questions about the materials on our pages.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Englishlover,
The first sentence ('being arrested') tells us about one event immediately following another. The second sentence ('having been arrested') would be used when we want to provide information not about one event immediately before another, but rather something in the past which is relevant in some way to the present action. Therefore the second sentence is not a natural construction for this context. Generally we do not use 'after' with this construction, because there is not a direct sequence. For example, we might say:
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Englishlover,
The first sentence, with an adverbial participle clause of time, could almost work, but without context, it's so vague that it's unnatural. Normally, participle clauses occur in somewhat formal sentences and in contexts that provide enough information to make the meaning of the participle clause clear. In this case, there isn't enough context and, I'm guessing, an important fact is that his death occurred on the way to the hospital, so really 'while' is needed. With 'while' (i.e. 'while being taken ...'), the sentence would be fine.
In the second clause, the subject of the participle clause ('the son') is different from the subject of the independent clause ('the father'). Normally the subject of the two clauses has to be the same. There are some exceptions to this rule, but here it doesn't work.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello seancheah,
The structure here in the first sentence is:
We use this to show cause/reason. You can rephrase it as Because of X, Y.
The second sentence is slightly different:
Here the second clause shows the reason or evidence for the first.
The fact that it is 'being' is not important; it could be any present participle (-ing form).
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Englishlover,
1, 2 and 4 are correct, though 'work' should be an uncount rather than plural noun in 2. The use of 'taught' in 3 is a bit unnatural, though the sentence is intelligible.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello mjwood,
The first example is a perfect participle, showing the situation (a completed action with a present result) at the time of jumping.
We can use past participles after nouns to describe them, functioning as an adjective. The structure is:
This is the structure used in the final example ('The match won...').
We cannot, however, use past participles on their own as a main verb, which is what is being attempted in the second (incorrect) example. You need to include a subject and finite verb form here to make it grammatical:
Effectively, what you have tried to do in the second example is to take a subject and full finite verb form ('she had won') and reduce it to just a participle. Participles cannot fulfil this role in the sentence.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello dlis,
Both of those sentences are grammatically correct but neither makes sense as an example of the use of participle clauses. The reason is that, as the information on the page says, participle clauses give information about condition, reason, result or time.
In your sentences there is no connection between the information. Your father did not retire because he was a teacher, or at the time he was a teacher, so there is no reason to link the information in this way.
You could use this construction if there were a link. For example, if you provide the reason for your father's retirement:
Here, the reason for the retirement is his age, so there is a connection. The difference between the two is that in the first sentence your father is still 65 at the time of speaking, whereas in the second we are talking about the moment when he became 65, which was in the past.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello dlis,
In these constructions the past participle has a passive meaning while the present participle has an active meaning. Both can be used to refer to any time - the time reference is set by the main verb. For example:
Note that the subject is always the same in both clauses.
You can read more about this on our page about participle clauses, which you can find here.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello sipun0044,
These are examples of different conditional forms and the difference is how likely the speaker considers the situation - likely/possible in the first example, and unlikely/impossible in the second.
You can read more about conditional forms on this page, this page and this page.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello sipun0044,
The difference between the sentences is as follows:
The speaker thinks there is a good chance that you will miss the train - it describes a real possibility.
The speaker does not expect you to miss the train - it is a hypothetical statement.
The difference here is in the speaker's perspective and how they see the event.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello bretfrag,
You're right that there's a bit of overlap in terms of 'reason' and 'result' in the example sentence above, and I'm sure in many other sentences. I usually think of 'reason' clauses as looking more to the future, i.e. they kind of carry the past or present condition into the future to explain the future action, whereas 'result' looks more to the past. But to be honest I'm not completely sure that thinking works in all cases.
In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about what the clauses are called - in most cases, of course, understanding what they mean is far more important, and, as I've mentioned, the names for these kinds of clauses aren't always very precise, so don't take them too seriously.
I hope this helps you.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello mark roi,
On this page it says:
Your example does not make sense as the subject would have to be the same. In other words your sentence means 'I was raining and I was walking'. You cannot use a participle clause if there are two different subjects, therefore you need to say, as you suggest, 'It was raining while I was walking'.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Tim-Xiong,
The time the taxes were imposed and the time that the revenue from those taxes was directed to health care, etc., seems to be considered more or less concurrent here. If we were to measure that time with a watch, surely you would be correct – they are not concurrent actions. But this sentence probably comes from a context when this objective difference in time is not considered relevant, for example an article reviewing the history of sin taxes, which is decades or even centuries long. Within that perspective, they are concurrent.
I hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello dany,
You can place the participal phrase in a number of positions:
Soaked to the skin, we eventually reached the station.
We eventually reached the station, soaked to the skin.
We, soaked to the skin, eventually reached the station.
The last of these would be the least common, and has a rather literary feel.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello bretfrag,
I'm not sure why you think the first sentence sounds strange, to be honest. It seems perfectly fine to me. Although the term 'participle clause' is often used (and is used on this page, and on this page), the correct name is 'participle phrase' as there is no finite verb present. Participle phrases generally have an adjectival function, providing more information about the subject of the main verb in the sentence. Other than the position of the participle phrase being more flexible, there is no difference in meaning between it and the reduced relative clause in your example.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Sharshar,
In your example the subject of both clauses is 'Peter'. The confusion arises from the fact that the first clause has a passive verb form ('Peter was shouted at loudly'). In passive constructions the grammatical subject is the recipient of the action. What you wrote inside the brackets is actually a transformed version of the first clause, in which you have changed passive to active and found a different subject, and this is misleading.
Best wishes,
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello monarcy110,
I'm afraid those sentences don't work, as the actions referred to with the participles occurred in the past.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team