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
"Environmental disasters are pummelling the planet, intensely and frequently."
Sir, why has a comma been put before 'intensely and frequently'? Don't you think there shouldn't have been a comma before as those are not sentence adverbs?
Hello ali shah,
I'm afraid that I can't explain why the writer chose to write his sentence this way, but to me it looks like a way of lending emphasis to the two qualities of the effects of the disasters.
I do agree that it is a bit unusual, but it doesn't strike me as wrong. Some editors might ask the writer to change the sentence, but I'm afraid this is a topic we don't deal with on LearnEnglish.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello, Sir. Hope you're doing well. Let me put my query.
''All parties involved in this war were rival sovereign nodes, yet united in spilling blood on local streets.''
Is the second clause starting with 'yet united...' is the reduced form of 'yet they are united...'?
Thanks and regards.
Hello Wrakshamara,
I think the verb 'were' is applicable to both clauses here: "... yet [they were] united in..."
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
'I got calls telling me to be thankful that I had not been physically hurt, and I am.'
Would you please shed some light on the structure of this 'got calls telling me' phrase and the type of phrase it is?
Hello ali shah,
Here 'telling me to be thankful that I had not been physically hurt' is a present participle clause that adds information about the kind of calls received. It's similar in function to a relative clause in this way.
So the basic structure is 'I got calls' and then the clause beginning with the present participle 'telling' gives more information about those calls.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you so much, Sir. God bless you!
Dear Sir. Hope you're doing well.
Please address the following query:
1.Widely seen as ‘father of the project’, Dr John experienced the ups and downs that come with being called a hero and a villain and then a hero in one lifetime.
Is the above sentence grammatically correct? Don't you think 'being' should have added before 'widely'? What does we call the first clause?
Hi ali shah,
Yes, it is grammatically correct! The 'widely seen' part is called a past participle clause. As the page above notes, past participle clauses normally have a passive meaning. So, that's why there's no 'being' here - this particular structure already contains this meaning. Have a look at the 'Past participle clauses' section on the page above for some more examples of this structure. I hope it helps :)
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello LearnEnglish Team
Why do consider participle clauses to be Upper Intermediate B2 level grammar?
I have participle clauses included in Advanced C1 English textbooks but never in Upper Intermediate B2 level.
Cheers
Adam
Hello Adam,
Level designations are always subjective. We consider participle clauses to be accessible for learners at this level. Of course, structures can be taught at different degrees of complexity: at lower levels the explanations may be simpler and avoid some of the more complex aspects; these can be introduced later when the topic is approached again.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello, LearnEnglish Team.
I want to know about the use of conjunction in participial construction.
Here is a sentence.
"Feeling nervous, she was carefully studying her notes."
In this participial construction, what the speaker intends to express is not clear. It can be variously interpreted in many ways.
Why? The speaker might want to say with Although, When, While, or Because.
I have been taught that I can put conjunction if I want to make it clearer.
Like below,
- Although feeling nervous, she was carefully studying her note.
- While feeling nervous, she was carefully studying her note.
- Because feeling nervous, she was carefully studying her note.
Are these three all right?
Of course, I know there is also a different grammatical form with the third one.
- Because of feeling nervous, she was carefully studying her notes.
( 'because of' works as a preposition, and 'feeling nervous' is a noun phrase.)
- Because feeling nervous, she was carefully studying her notes.
('because' works as a conjunction, and 'feeling nervous' is participial construction.)
In English grammar, especially in the field of participial construction,
Is 'because feeling nervous' wrong?
Or Can I use it?
Thanks in advance.
Hello Hyeyoung Min,
As you say, participle clauses/phrases can be ambiguous, though I think when placed in context rather than presented as isolated sentences the intended meaning is usually clear.
It is possible to use conjunctions like this. However, 'because' is not possible. After 'because' you need to use a subject-verb rather than just a participle:
~ Because she was feeling nervous...
'Because of' is also not possible. We follow 'because of' with a noun and not an -ing form:
~ Because of her nerves, ...
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello The LearnEnglish Team,
I have just read a sentence like this below,
I spent a whole day listening to the man who was a mechanic telling me a story about when he was young.
Are "listening and telling" in the sentence above participle ?
And can I interpret the sentence above as,
I spent a whole day, which listened to the man who was a mechanic who told me a story about when he was young.
Is that correct or wrong ?
Hello Parikenan,
It sounds to me as if you've understood the sentence correctly, and yes, I'd call both of those participles. In the first case, the verb 'spend' is often followed by a period of time (here 'a whole day') plus a participle that describes what the subject was doing during that time.
In the second case, verbs of perception (such as 'see', 'watch', and 'listen') can be followed by a participle or a bare infinitive that describes what is perceived. When the second verb is a participle, it puts more emphasis on the duration or a specific moment in time -- it's impossible to say without knowing the context or the speaker's intention.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Kirk,
In my comprehension about the sentence,
I interpret "listening" as a modifier that modifies a clause "I spent a whole day". In this case, I am using "which" after a comma to make sure that "listening" is modifying a clause.
And I interpret "telling" as a modifier that modifies a mechanic.
I just found out that one of the functions of a participle is for emphasizing the duration or a specific moment in time of something that is done by an object when the participle is put in the second verb as you mentioned above - in this case, how a mechanic tells a story about him when he was young. ( I hope I am not misinterpreting your explanation related to the function of a participle as a second verb )
Thank you very much, Kirk.
Hello Nevi,
Sentences like this can be ambiguous. You can often read the -ing form in two ways: adverbially describing the action in the main clause or adjectivally providing more information about the noun phrase which precedes it. I think that's the case here too. You can say that it is the act of signing the contract which will keep him at the club, or the contract which will keep him at the club. I think the second is more likely, as you say, but it is ambiguous.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Nicoletta,
I wouldn't say those are participle clauses. They are reduced forms of longer clauses which have become fixed expressions due to being used so frequently.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Rafaela1,
First of all, remember that participle clauses aren't used much in speech or writing -- it's really only in quite formal writing or very formal speaking that you find them. This means you probably won't find that you need to use them very often.
Assuming that you don't urgently need to learn to use participle clauses, I'd recommend that you look out for them as you listen to and read English. Write them down somewhere and analyse them using the explanation above. As you do this, I think you will start to remember the structures and thus be able to begin to use them. You're welcome to ask us for help if you have further questions.
How does that sound?
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Nevi,
I'd say that 'her wanting to live alone' is a noun phrase; it's the same structure as 'her desire to live alone'; that is, 'wanting' is a noun, just like 'desire' is.
Note that you could also say 'Her wanting to live alone is understandable' -- in this case, the clause is also a noun phrase plus the verb 'be' plus an adjective.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Nevi,
Yes, 'wanting' is a gerund in this case.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevı,
Yes, that's right :)
But for your example, I would say one of these versions instead:
The reason is that a gerund (e.g. studying) is somewhere between a verb and a noun (see this comment thread for a more detailed explanation). If you add a possessive adjective, it makes it more noun-like than verb-like, and nouns have a preposition before an object - that's why I added 'of' in the second sentence.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mussorie,
I think the first two forms can be used interchangeably. The third one does not look correct to me as a UK English speaker.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mussorie,
The first two sentences can be used interchangeably, which means there is no difference in meaning between them. The third sentence is not a correct form, so there is no meaning to explain.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevı,
It isn't possible with all conjunctions, but it is commonly used after when. The past participle clause describes the subject of the main clause (i.e., She became very tearful when (she was) pressed to talk about it). The past participle clause normally has a passive meaning, and when shows that the two actions happened at or around the same time.
Here are some more examples.
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevi,
A present participle (-ing) can describe the result of an action, but it's important to remember that the participle's action always refers back to the subject of the main clause. For example:
The bomb exploded, destroying the building.
It is the bomb which is doing the destroying here.
Your sentences contain past participles (-ed), which have a passive meaning. You could describe a result using a present participle:
He was late to class for the third time this week, causing him to be suspended / resulting in his suspension from his school
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Nevi.
To be precise, the participle here refers to the action performed by the man: being late for class caused him to be suspended.
In participle clauses, the participle does not introduce a new actor. Whatever it describes refers to the same actor as that in the main clause.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Nevi,
Yes, in this example, 'which' refers to the whole first clause.
Please note that the wording of the relative clause is a little awkward. I'd recommend 'which is the reason he's been suspended' or something like that.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Arafat,
In each pair, the correct form is with -ing (present participle).
The present participle has an active meaning, while the past participle (-ed) has a passive meaning. In your examples an active meaning is required: it is the bomb which explodes and the participants who break the rules.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Nevi,
That sentence is fine.
When the participle clause comes at the start we separate it with a comma, as you say. When the participle clause comes after the main clause the comma is optional and is generally a stylistic choice. Using a comma suggests a spoken pause, which can add emphasis to the action in the participle clause.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Nevi,
These are examples of participle clauses, which are not the same as relative/adjective clauses. Compare:
The first sentence is a non-defining relative clause. As you say, it cannot be reduced. The relative clause provides additional information about the noun.
The second sentence is a participle clause. It does not provide additional information about Harry Kane but rather describes an action in progress at the time of the first action.
I think you'll see the difference if you look at this example, where only one form is possible:
You cannot use a participle clause here because the actions are not simultaneous: living in Italy is a general state, not an action at the same as time as my seeing him.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Nevi,
Yes, that is a participle clause. A relative clause here would be a defining relative clause identifying which officer is being described (the officer who... and not another officer). Here, however, the participle is describing the action being performed in the video.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team