Onthe Participia1Constructionin Eng1ish
一with a Specia1Focus on Syntactic Positions
教育内容・方法開発専攻
文化表現系教育コース
言語系教育分野（英語）
M11175F
張角 晴美
0n the Part1c1p1a1Construction in Eng1ish
−with a Specia1Focus on Syntactic Positions
AThesis
Presented−to
The Facu1ty ofthe Grad−uate Course at
Hyogo University ofTeacher Ed−ucation
In Part1a1Fu皿11ment
Ofthe Requ1rements for the De餌ee of
MasterofSchoo1Education
by
Harumi Furikad−o
（Student Number：M11175F）
December2012
i
Acknow1edgements
I am ind−ebted to a11the peop1e who have he1ped−and supported me to
write this thesis．First and foremost，I express my sincere and genuine
gratitud−e to my supervisor，Pro地ssor Mlariko Udo，who guided every stage of
the comp1etion of this thesis with insightfu1and−competent aavice，and
generous ana honest encouragement．I wi11treasure her considerate words
and attitude andwi1Icherishevery momentI sharedwithher Withouther，
this thesis wou1（l never have come into being，
I am very gratefu1to Mr．Mlark S．Tay1or at Hyogo University of
Teacher Education，who a1ways inspired me with his thoughtfu1and
de1iberate suggestions basea on his profound wisd−om and−intuition． I
deep1y appreciate that he generous1y spared me so much ofhis precious time−
I owe him much ofmy und−erstanaing ofthe Eng1ish construction I d−ea1t with
in this thesis．
I express my heartfe1t thanks to Mr Chris Gersbach，assistant
1anguage teacher at Hyogo Pre危。tura1Hojo Senior High Schoo1，who never
fa11ed−to prov1de me w1th h1s smcere and know1ed−geab1e opm1ons ana
hospita1ity for the many inquires I made．My specia1thanks are extendea
to Mr．Robert Fau1k and Ms．Chan Weber in Ca1i危mia．Ms．Weber and I
were coworkers at Hyogo Prefectura1Fukusaki Senior High Schoo1，where
we shared many sp1endid memories，and I sincere1y thank her and Mr．Fau1k
允r the1r contmued kmd−ness dunng my stud1es
I a1so wish to acknow1ed−ge the Hyogo Prefectura1Board−of Education
危r providing me with the occasion危r graduate stu蚊which tumed out to be
ii
a marve1ous opportun1ty to make new d−1scover1es not on1y m Eng11sh study
but a1so in other丘e1d−s．
Last1y I thank a11of the members of my fami1y who supported ana
encouraged me through these two years．Withtheir he1p，my1㎝g−stanaing
wish has been fu固11ed．
Harumi Furikad0
Kato，Hyogo
December，2012
iii
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation is to d−etermine how the phrase
pos1t1on contr1butes to the semant1c mterpretat1on of sentences w1th
subordinates composed−of the particip1es（i．e．，the participia1constructions）．
D1揃erent funct1ons are危und to be assoc1atea w1th part1c1p1a1phrases p1aced
in血。nt of the main c1ause（Pre・PrtPs）and participia1phrases p1aced−a乱er
the mam c1ause（Post・PrtPs）．On1y part1c1p1a1phrases head−ed−by a present
particip1e，which are regarded as the basic usage of the participia1phrase，
are exammed−here；further research1s necessary for phrases usmgpe曲。t or
past part1c1p1es，the con］unct1ons，or the part1c1p1a1subJects
Surveys that mc1ud−ed pa1red sentences（one sentence w1th a part1c1p1a1
phrase in血。nt ofthe main c1ause and−the other with the iaentica1participia1
phrase a此er the mam c1ause）are used to examme the d1fferent funct1ons，
and based on the resu1ts it is conc1uded that Pre．PrtPs express an
act1on／event／state wh1ch over1aps the begmmng of the mam event，whereas
Post−PrtPs express an action／event／state which over1aps whatever point of
the main event as an accompanying circumstan㏄．It is a1so argued that
Pre−PrtPs express the tempora1，1og1ca1，or percept1ona1pr1or1ty to the mam
c1ause，and that Post・prtPs express mformat1ve supP1ements to the mam
c1ause regard−1ess of the event ord−er． Pre’PrtPs are thought to he1p the
understanaing of the main c1ause and contribute to the cohesiveness of the
sentence as a who1e．By contrast，in sentences with a Post’PrtP，the main
c1ause1s1og1ca11y mdependent and seems comp1ete w1thout the ass1stance of
the Post・PrtP． A㏄ordmg1y，Post・PrtPs need to supP1y an1n危rmat1ve
iV
description to the main c1ause．0n1y those Post・PrtPs that are informative
cou1a冊11ow the1ogica11y comp1eted message．
The choice on the subordination of the c1auses in the participia1
construction renects the writer／speaker’s intention as to how the situation is
to be recogn1zed by the readers／11steners It1s a1so suggested that the
percept1on of the actors a脆。ts the mference of the1mp11ed−sub］ect of the
part1c1p1es． I propose that the narrat1ve e価ect of the part1c1p1a1
constmct1on dIrects the readers to recogmze the s1tuat1on descr1bea血。m the
same viewpoint as the actors．
I a1so attempted to observe how the funct1ons of the part1c1p1a1
construction are brought into e脆。t in1iterary works． The d−escriptive
e脆。ts attained by using the participia1constructions are i11ustratea by
severa1examp1es血。m1iterature．It is proposed that the actorls perception
of the current situation is e拙ective1y described−by the position of the
pa・ticipia1ph・a・・（・）．
The part1c1p1a1construct1ons succeed1n g1v1ng a d1価erent sketch of the
same situation，depending on t11e phrase position．Based−on my丘ndings
regard−Ing the d1f胎rent funct1ons of Pre and Post．PrtP，I argue Pre’PrtP
a11ows the readers to see into the actor’s mind by te11ing what is prior in his
perception．The argument above may be an answer to the question raised
by BiberθC∂λ（1985）：’IWhy丘。tion and acad−emic prose have s1ight1y higher
proportions in initia1 position，” though 丘na1 position is c1ear1y ’Ithe
unmarked cho1ce施r non’丘mte adverb1a1c1auses m a11re馴sters” I a1so
argue that a potentia1e価ect of Post−PrtPs is their abi1ity to prod−uce1ingering
images which may enchant the readers as a visionary aepiction．
V
The participia1constructions guid−e the readers to capture the situation
described and make them identi蚊with the actor’s viewpoint．The readers
are induced to use their own subjective imagination and participate in the
appreciation of the text，The participia1construction may he1p readers
a㏄ess an emot1ona1tmth wh1ch m1ght not be su1tab1y descr1bed−by exp11c1t
expressions using outside conjunctions． Thus，the participia1construction
intrigues the readers，since its imp1icitness a11ows the readers to sympathize
with the emotiona1de1icacy ofthe actors．I conc1ude that the e価ects ofthe
participia1construction1ie in the emotiona1interactions between the actor
and the reader，which might be manipu1ated by the writer．
Vi
Contents
Acknow1ed．9ements．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．一一。一．．．．．．．．．．．i
Abstract．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．iii
In1；rod．uction．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．1
Chapter1 D此rent hnct1ons ofph訟se positions
1．1．The丘rst observation：the di価erent coherence with the main c1ause．．．5
1．2．The second observation：the di揃erent over1ap to the main c1ause．．．．．．．．7
1．3The th1rd observat1on’mformat1veness 、．．．．．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ．．11
1．4．Resu1ts of ana1yses．．．．．．．．．．．．．1．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．14
Chapter2 The phodty and．the supp1ementahty
2，1．Tempora1priority．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．＿＿＿＿．．16
2．2．Logica1priority．、．、．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．＿．．．．．．．．．。．一一一＿＿＿．。18
2．3．Perceptiona1priority．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．一＿＿＿＿一20
Chapter3 Recognit1on ofthe situat1on
3．1．The main c1ause and the participia1phrase．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．＿＿＿＿．．24
3．2．The imp1ied subject．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．。．．．、．．．．．．．．．＿．．．．．．．、、．＿＿＿＿＿＿．＿＿．26
Chapter4 Literary works
41．The aescr1pt1ve e価ects ． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ．． 、．．． 35
4．2．Description ofthe perceptiona1priority．．．．．．＿．．．．．．．．．．．．＿＿＿＿．．．．．．一＿．．．．36
4，3．The e拙ects of1ingering images．．．．．．＿．．．．．．．．．＿＿＿＿＿＿．＿＿．＿＿．。。．一．．．40
4．4．Description ofthe emotiona1rea1ity．＿＿＿＿＿一．＿＿＿＿＿．．一．．一＿＿＿＿43
Conc1usion．．．．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．46
Note．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．48
Re危rences．．．．．．、．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．49
1
IntrOduCt10n
The缶11owing sentences are from mθ0〃M優刀∂〃♂肋θ86∂by Eamest
Hemingway：
（i）He was thirsty too and he got down on his knees and一，being carefu1not
to jerk on the1ine，movea as far into the bow as he cou1d get and
reachea the water bott1e with one hand一． （46）
（ii）He started to work his way back to the stem on his hand−s and knees，
be1ng carefu1not to〕erk aga1nst the丘sh． （78）
（bo1d ibnt is not used in either origina1）
The actor is on a boat，ho1ding a丘shing Iine against his back．At the end of
the11ne1s a huge丘sh−a mar1m He has been bearmg the pu1I of the
mar1in across his shou1dersおr more than four hours．Now he is going to
make a move on the boatwhi1e bo1dingthe1ine，a risky act．Whenwe read
the passages above，we might fee1somewhat different1eve1s oftension，thri11，
suspense or excitement between sentences（i）and（ii），and−we notice that the
participia1phrases are p1aced in di価erent positions，to the1e乱。f the verb
‘moved一’in（i）and−to the right of‘started−to work’in（ii）．Is it a coincid−ence
that the sentence which has the participia1phrase in front ofthe main c1ause
is the description ofthe actor’s丘rst move，and−the sentence whose participia1
phrase is p1aced a舟er the main c1ause is the description ofthe second−move？
Perhaps not．Here arises our primary question：How d−oes the position of
the participia1phrase contribute to the semantic interpretation of the
sentence wh1ch1s ca11ed the part1c1p1a1construct1ong The exp1orat1on ofthe
sentences’construction can thus start witb a specia1interest in the syntactic
positions．
We sha11see丘rst how the grammatica1constmction in question is
exp1ained−by Quirkθc a∠（1985：1124）． They ae丘ned ad−verbia1particip1e
and verb1ess c1auses without a subordinator as supp1ementive c1auses，and
they statea that supp1ementive c1auses”do not signa1speci丘。1ogica1
re1ationships，but such re1ationships are genera11y c1ear from the context．”
They remarked−that”a㏄ord−ing to the context，we may wish to imp1y
tempora1，cond−1t1ona1，causaI，concessive，or c1rcumstant1a1re1at1onsh1p，”
and that”m short，the supp1ement1ve c1auses1mp1y an a㏄ompanymg
c1rcumstance to the s1tuat1on descr1bed m the matr1x c1ause’’Qu1rkθc aZ
did−not mention the existence of speci丘。 factors besides the context that
enab1e us to in危r the re1ationships between the c1auses despite the absence
of an exp1icit conjunction．
BiberθCθ∠（1999：201）touched on the phrase position，saying that the
m危rmat1on g1ven m the part1c1p1a1phrase1s markea”as subordmate：as
backgrouna （initia1 position）， parenthetica1 （med−ia1 position）， or
supp1ementary（丘na1pos1t1on）’’The1r md1cat1on of the pos1t1ona1funct1on
is suggestive，but the precise meanings of the woras”background−I’and
11
唐浮垂o1ementary”were not spec1丘ea．It1s a1so d−1曲。u1t to丘nd a comp1ete
ana1ys1s ofthe phrase pos1t1on1n other stud−1es I therefbre chose to test the
assumpt1on that the phrase pos1t1on p1ays an1mportant ro1e m the
apPropriate interpretation of a sentence．
Surveys were d−es1gned prev1ous1y to determme how the phrase pos1t1on
3
contr1butes to the semant1c mterpretat1on ofa sentence．Severa1senten㏄s
m grammar books were chosen and−new sentences were made by reversmg
the ora1nate c1ause and the subord1nate c1ause 1n the sentences I
presented−the origina1sentences ana the new sentences in pairs to
m危rmants．Severa1nat1ve speakers ofEng11sh were asked−what d1脆rence
（if any）they wou1d丘nd−in their semantic interpretations of the paired−
SentenCeS．1
The surveys dea1t w1th the part1c1p1a1phrases headed by present
particip1es，which are regarded as the basic usage ofthe participia1phrases．
The part1c1p1a1phrases have w1de var1at1ons m structures，some are headed
by past or perfect particip1es，others have the participia1subjects，and sti11
others have conjunctions to mark the re1ationship to the main c1auses．
Though it wou1d be desirab1e to conduct further research on those participiaI
phrases，use of the present surveys enab1ed some fundamenta1d1scover1es
which are worth presenting and discussing．The surveys a1soあ。used on
d−etecting the d−i価erences between the e脆。ts of the initia1position and−the
丘na1pos1t1on of the part1c1p1a1phrase on the presumpt1on that the med1a1
pos1t1on shares the bas1c functIons w1th the m1t1a1pos1t1on when the
participia1phrase is p1aced aheaa ofthe verb in the matrix sentence．
Chapter1provides the丘nd−ings of the surveys and the resu1ts of the
ana1ysis of how the phrase position contributes to the semantic
1nterpretat1on of sentences． Chapter2exp1a1ns the d1揃erent hnct1ons
fu1丘11ed by the participia1phrase（PrtP）p1acea in血。nt of the main c1ause
（herea乱er cited as Pre・PrtP）and the phrase p1aced−after the main c1ause
（herea乱er cited as Post・PrtP）．The issue of how the subordination of the
4
c1auses in the sentence brings a ai舐erent recognition of the situation is
exp1orea in Chapter3．Aaiscussion ofthe imp1ied−subjects ofthe particip1e
is a1so presented，inc1ud−ing some thoughts on what is re且ected in the1inear
order of the c1auses in a given sentence．
Severa11iterary works are taken up in Chapter4to i11ustrate how
various descriptive ef五ects are attained−by using sentences with the
subord−inates composed of particip1es（referred to here as the participia1
COnStruCtiOnS）．
5
Chapter1
D脆rent hnctIons ofphmse pos1t1ons
1．1．The趾st obsewat1on：the伍飽rent coherence w1th the mam c1ause
Thomson and Mlartinet（1980：241−243）o描ered a1ucid exp1anation of
the genera1functions of the participia1construction． The sentence be1ow
（1a），given by them，shows that”when one action is immediate1y危11owea by
another by the same subject the丘rst action can o丑en be expressed by a
present particip1e”which must be pIaced−in front of the main c1ause．In
order to discover the positiona1functions，the ordinate c1ause and the
suborainate c1ause in the sentence（1a）were reversea，as shown in（1b）．I
askea ten informants about the di描erence in the semantic interpretations of
（1a）and（1b）：
（1）a．Opening the drawer he took out a revo1ver．
b．He took out a revo1ver，opening the d−rawer．
Au the informants saia that（1a）gives a picture that two actions occurrea
successive1y：the actor丘rst opened the d−rawer and then he took out a
revo1ver from the drawer M1ost informants regarded（1b）as una㏄eptab1e．
However，one informant made an interesting observation．He pointed out
that（1b）means the revo1ver was not in the drawer A㏄ord−ing to him，（1b）
describes that the actor cond−uctea two actions at the same time with his two
hand−s；e．g．，the actor took out a revo1ver from his pocket with his right hand
6
whi1e he was opening the drawer with his1e批hand．This observation was
shared by other informants and it seems reasonab1e to think that（1a）
describes two su㏄essive actions，whi1e（1b）describes two simu1taneous
aCtiOnS．
Sentence（1b）needs to be investigated−furtheL That is because we
notice（1b）might be ab1e to describe that the actor took out the revo1ver from
the drawer when the context shows a revo1ver had−been in the drawer．
Such a situation，however，tumed−out to be unimaginab1e．It was pointed
out that the artic1e ‘a’in （1b）ind−icates that the revo1ver haa not been
mentionea yet．The artic1e was proposed to be changed into‘the’，as shown
in（2）：
（2）He took out泌θrevo1ver，opening the araweL
It was judged that the sentence above describes that the actor took out the
revo1ver缶。m the drawer whi1e he was opening it．
This survey revea1ed−d−i茄erent functions of Pre−PrtP and Post−PrtP，
The Pre・PrtP in（1a）a11ows the reaaer／hearer to infer that‘a’revo1ver was
contained in the drawer． It is a1so inferred that the two actions，opening the
drawer and taking out a revo1ver，were c1ose1y re1ated to each other．By
comparison，the Post・PrtP in（1b）simp1y ind−icates a simu1taneous action
with the main action，and the in免rence of the corre1ation between the two
actions re1ies on the context．In other woras，we can reasonab1y think that
a Pre・PrtP expresses a coherent re1ationship with the main c1ause and
contributes to the cohesiveness ofthe sentence as a who1e． In contrast，it is
7
apparent that the basic function of a Post−PrtP is to express an
a㏄ompanymg c1rcumstance ofthe ma1n event wh1ch may not have any other
re1ationship than simu1taneity and−that a Post−PrtP needs other factors for
the in危rence ofthe1ogica1re1ationship with the main c1ause．
This survey aemonstrated the d−ifferent coherences with the main
c1ause of Pre・PrtP and Post−PrtP． It revea1ed that a function of a Pre−PrtP
is to indicate the1ogica11y coherent re1ationship with the main c1ause，
whereas a function of a Post・PrtP is to express an a㏄ompanying
circumstance ofthe main event．
1．2．The second observat1on：t11e dif危rent over1ap to the ma1n c1ause
The surveys revea1ed another1mportant丘nd1ng The fo11owmg
sentence（3a）given by Thomson ana Martinet（必姐242）shows that”a
present particip1e can rep1ace a suborainate c1ause’’ headed by
”as／since几ecause．” A new sentence was made by changing the phrase
position，as shown in（3b）． The di拙erence in the interpretations of（3a）ana
（3b）was examined：
（3）a．Knowing that he wou1dn’t be ab1e to buy危。d on his journey he took
1arge supP1ies with him．
b．He took1arge supp1ies with him，knowing that he wou1dn’t be ab1e
to buy food on his journey．
AL1the informants agreed that the sentences above have a1most the same
meaning．Contrary to this resu1t，some of the informants stated that the
fo11owmg sentences have d−1fferent meanmgs
（4）a．Not knowing what to do，I te1ephoned the po1ice．
（Swan455）
b．I te1ephoned−the po1ice，not knowing what to do．
The d−1f危rent resu1ts between tbe sentence sets（3）and（4）are mterestmg，
since they seem to have the identica1syntactic structure with the same
particip1e，”knowing．” Further interviews were cond−ucted using（4a）and
（4b）to ana1yze the（1ifferentjudgments among the informants，revea1ingthat
a11the informants agreed that（4a）d−enotes that the speaker had−not known
what to d−oろθあ〃he te1ephoned the po1ice． The paraphrase缶r（4a）was
shared−as’’I d−idn’t know what to do，so I te1ephoned the po1ice．” Sentence
（4b）was found−to aenote that the speaker did−not know what to do肋θ〃he
teIephoned−the po11ce The mformants thought1t was rather d1筋。u1t to
paraphrase（4b），but they managed−to give such paraphrases as”I
te1ephoned the po1ice；I didn’t kmw what to do”or”I dian’t know what to d−o
whi1e I te1ephoned the po1ice1”We can proper1y conc1ude that the Pre・PrtP
in（4a）d−escribes the preced−ing situation to the main event as its cause，
whereas the Post−PrtP in（4b）describes the simu1taneous state with the
main event．Here again a di脆rence in the1ogica1re1ation with the main
c1ause of Pre−PrtP and Post・PrtP is suggested一．
Some in勉rmants said that（4a）d−escribes that the decision on
te1ephonmg the po11ce tr1ggered the termmat1on of the speaker’s confused
state of min（1，but the other informants considered that the speaker
remained−at a1oss even after the te1ephone ca11．As for（4b），some of the
informants thought that the speaker might have decided−to te1ephone the
po1ice without any hesitation and now he was asking the po1ice what to d−o on
the phone．Those informants fe1t that the Post−PrtP in（4b）expresses the
s1muItaneous c1rcumstances of the te1ephone ca11 The other m此rmants
thought that the Post−PrtP in（4b）d−escribes the reason why the person
te1ephoned the po1ice． A㏄oraing1y，it was not surprising that the
informants were divided as to whether（4a）and（4b）share the semantic
interpretation．
Th1s survey proved−that there are d1fferent1d−eas concemmg when the
situation described−in the participia1phrase commences or end−s． The
examination of the d−i拙erent opinions among the informants resu1ted−in the
fo11owing hypotheses：
1．APre−PrtPexpressesanaction／event／statewhichover1apsthe
beginning ofthe main event without denoting the termina1point．
2．APost−PrtPexpressesanaction／event／statewhichover1apswhatever
point ofthe main event without denoting the commencing point．
The portion of hypothesis1saying that a Pre．PrtP aoes not denote the
termma1pomt exp1ams why some mformants mferred−that the state of‘not
knowmg what to do’termmated when the speaker te1ephoned，though the
other in允rmants inferred that the state continuea a批er the te1ephone ca11，
Simi1arIy，the portion ofhypothesis2saying that a Post・PrtP does not denote
the commencmg pomt exp1ams why some mformants thought the state of
10
‘not knowing what to do’re免rred−to the situation before the speaker
te1ephoned一，wh11e the other mbrmants thought the state was s1mu1taneous
with the ca11，
These two h㎜otheses a1so adequate1y pred−ict the answer that（3a）and一
（3b）share the interpretation．We can reasonab1y think that the state of
‘knowing that he wou1a not be ab1e to buy缶。d on his journey’wou1d not
change be危re and a乱eポhe took1arge supp1ies with him．’
Afurther i1Iustration ofthe hypotheses is based on a comparison ofthe
fo11owing Passages：
（5）a．’IFrom where？’’asked someone．
”Where？From wherever the train is now，’’said Totto−chan，
begmmngtothi吐her ideawasn’t a goodone，a乱er au
（Kuroyana9150；bo1d font1s not used m the or1gma1）
b．”From where？”asked someone．
Begmning to think her1d−ea wasn’t a good one，a此er aI1，Totto−chan
saia，”Where？Fromwhereverthe trainis now．”
Totto−chan’s schoo1has made use of the abanaoned rai1road cars for its
c1assrooms．Totto・chan and her friends are excited at the news that a new
ra11road car1s com㎎．Now theyhave acha11eng1ngtop1c：”What routew111
the rai1road car take to get to the schoo1？I’ Totto−chan hits upon a good idea
and cries，’’Rai1s！They’re probab1y going to1ay some rai1s right here to the
schoo1．’’Then she is asked一，’’From where？” In the passages above，when
wou1d−we in危r Totto．chan began to think her idea wasn’t good a血er a11？
11
The inference in（5b）is that Totto・chan had a1ready begun to doubt her idea
before starting her speech，whi1e the inference in（5a）is that the d−oubt might
arise and grow during her utterance．An actress may speak out the part
”Where？”with a di脆rent intonation in each utterance，probab1y with
conidence in（5a）but with anxiety in（5b）． Thus，we see that the situations
aescribed by Pre−PrtP ana Post−PrtP over1ap the main event di拙erent1y；the
Pre’PrtP expresses a situation which over1aps the beginning of the main
event，and the Post・PrtP expresses a situation which over1aps the main
event at whatever point．
1．3．The third obsewat1on：1n飴rmat1veness
Kubota （2004）argued that a Post−PrtP shou1d−d−escribe what is
compatib1e with the description in the main c1ause，quoting the此11owing
SentenCe：
（6）＊The airp1ane exp1odea in mid−air，ki11ing none of its crews and−
passengers・
The sentence above is una㏄eptab1e，because the surviva1ofa11the crews and
passengers is not preaicted from the airp1ane exp1osion． Kubota a1so
pointed out that the1inear order of the participia1phrase ana the main
cIause in a sentence is血ee，and has nothing to do with the actua1event order，
quoting the fo11owing sentence：
（7）At one point I mad−e up my mind to go and ta1k to Unc1e Sam．Then
12
I changed my mind，rea1ising that he cou1d do mthing to he1p、
The sentence above is acceptab1e despite the fact that the speaker shou1d−
have rea1ised−his unc1e cou1d−not he1p him be飴re he changed−his mina．
Kubota then presents the fo11owing sentence：
（8）＊He threw a stick at a dog，picking it up．
The sentence above is una㏄eptab1e，Kubota exp1ains，not because the act of
picking up is mentioned a乱er the main c1ause but because such a mention is
not predictab1e from the description that the actor threw a stick at a d−og．
Kubota thus points out that the Post−PrtP in（8）fai1s to be compatib1e with
the description in the main c1ause．Kubota’s ana1ysis is very insightfu1in
that it has e1ucidated−that a Post・PrtP shou1d have pragmatic re1evance to
the main c1ause，Further research regarding the functions ofthe Post・PrtP
iS neCeSSary．
The judgment on（8）was sharea by our in危rmants．0ne of their
reasons fbr the unacceptabi1ity is that the referent of the pronoun I’it”is
ambiguous as to whether it is the stick or the dog．The words”at a dog’’
were de1eted in（9），and−the地11owing sentence was tested：
（9）＊He threw a stick，picking it up．
The sentence above was a1so judged unacceptab1e． The question ofwhether
there is any other speci丘。 exp1anation for the unacceptabi1ity than what
13
Kubota pointed out arises，since hypothesis2predicts that this Post−PrtP
cou1d express an action which commenced−before the main event．
The discussions among the informants brought a very important
rea11zat1on’The Post−PrtP1n（9）1s not m施rmat1ve enough to g1ve
meamngh1aeta11s to the ma1n act1on of throwmg． A kmd of
informativeness seems to be required of a Post・PrtP．In order to c1ari蚊
what it is to be informative，it wou1d he1p to Iook again at sentence（2）：
（2）He took out the revo1ver，opening the drawer．
The action described−in Post・PrtP is informative about the（1escription in the
ma1n c1ause，smce‘openmg the drawer’supp11es meamngfu1deta11s to the
main event‘he took out the revo1ver．’How about（9）（”He threw a stick，
picking it up”）？ Does mentioning‘picking it up’give any informative detai1s
to the mam act1on of throwmg？Refemng to‘p1ckmg1t up’a此er the mam
c1ause wou1d−on1y1mpede the readers’thmkmg process and confuse them
about the actua1event oraer．We thus rea1ize that the Post−PrtP in（9）
needs to be more informative about the main event．The survey found the
acceptabi1ity ofthe飴11owing sentence：
（10）He threw必θstick（at a dog），picking it up缶。m the pi1e．
In the sentence above，the artic1e‘the’proved−to give natura1ness to the
sentence since it inaicates a given context．We rea1ize that in（10），‘picking
it up血。m the pi1e’succeeds in giving a meaningfu1detai1to the act of
14
throwing，regard1ess of the actua1event order．We thus a㎎ue that a
Post−PrtP shou1d d−escribe what is informative about the main c1ause．Here
are some ofthe other sentences accepted−by the informants：
（11）He entered the room，opening the aoor hasti1y．
（12）He took out h1s ce11phone from h1s pocket，hearmg the ca11
Even though the Post−PrtPs in（11）and（12）d−escribe situations preceding
the actions described in the mainc1auses，the sentences above are a㏄eptab1e
since the Post−PrtPs provid−e detai1s that are informative about the main
eVentS．
It shou1a be noted−that without a conjunction between the two
statements，the1ogica1re1ation between the statements is to be inferred−
depenaing on the order of the presentations． Therefore，in the participia1
construct1on，the temporaI sequence ofact1ons／events shou1d be expressed−m
order of their occurrences，since we wou1d otherwise have no idea what
occurs after what．In the nontempora1cases，however，it wou1d−be common
to refer to the preceding circumstances a舟er describing the main event．
Natura11y，it is possib1e危r a Post−PrtP to describe circumstances preceding
the main event．However，we shou1d note that when a Post・PrtP refers to a
s1tuat1on precedmg the mam event，the Post・PrtP shou1d be m危rmat1ve
about the description in the main c1ause．
1．4．Resu1ts of ana1yses
The irst observation in the present study was that a Pre−PrtP a11ows
15
the mference of a1og1ca1re1at1onsh1p between the part1c1p1a1phrase and−the
main c1ause，whereas a Post−PrtP needs other factors此r the inference of a
1ogica1re1ation besides being simu1taneous．The third observation was that
when a Post・PrtP refers to a situation preceding the main event，the
Post’PrtP shou1d−be informative about the main c1ause．How shou1d−these
two丘nd−ings be exp1ained？
I conc1uded that the position of a Pre−PrtP in a sentence infers the
coherence of the Pre・PrtP with the main c1ause，since the description given
in advance wou1d−be regarded as necessary information to interpret the main
c1ause． According1y，we can say that a Pre−PrtP he1ps the reader／1istener
understand−the main c1ause and contributes to the cohesiveness of the
sentence as a who1e． By contrast，in the case ofa sentence with a Post・PrtP，
the main c1ause is1ogica11y ind−ependent and seems comp1eted without the
assistance ofthe Post・PrtP．Wethencan understandwhy a Post−PrtP needs
to supP1y mformat1ve descr1pt1on to the mam c1ause−on1y an mformat1ve
Post−PrtP wou1d make a1ogica1Iy coherent message．
In summary，the contributions of Pre−PrtPs and Post−PrtPs to the
semantic interpretation ofsentences are as危11ows：a Pre−PrtP expresses an
actio〃event／state which over1aps the beginning of the main event without
d−enotmg the termma1pomt，and a Post−PrtP expresses an act1o〃event／state
which over1aps whatever point of the main event without d−enoting the
commencmg pomt A Pre−PrtP expresses a coherent re1at1onsh1p w1th the
main c1ause and contributes to the cohesiveness of the sentence as a who1e，
whereas a Post・PrtP supp1ies an informative description of the event
described in the main c1ause．
16
Chapter2
The pnor1ty and．the supp1ementarIty
2．1．㎜empora1priority
The word一’’over1ap”used in the preceding chapter merits an exp1oration．
The situation d−escribed in a participia1phrase does not a1ways over1ap with
the event d−escribed in the main c1ause．
Tomozawa（2003）argued that the tempora1re1ationship ofsimu1taneity
p1ays a crucia1ro1e in motivatingthe use ofthe participia1construction−He
regarded−the usage of the construction for successive events as an extension
ofthe basic usage for simu1taneity，citing the notion of”s1oppy simu1taneity”
presented by Dec1erck（1991：132−133）．”S1oppy simu1taneity’I is exp1ained−
by Dec1erck as施11ows：”the tense forms expressing simu1taneity can be used
in cases where there is‘s1oppy’rather than strict simu1taneity．” He a1so
introd−uced−the危11owing sentences（13）and（14）as’’c1ear i11ustrations of
such a use，”after pomt1ng out that the bas1c meamng ofa present part1c1p1e
is the expression ofsimu1taneity．
（13）0pening the drawer，he took out a book1et．
（14）The1orry skiωed offthe roaa，narrow1y missing a coup1e ofcottages
and ended−up in a丘e1a．
Dec1erck considers it common that”the speaker disregards the fact that the
two situations do not rea11y over1ap but concentrates on the fact that they
17
fo11ow each other c1ose1y and−that there is some1ogica1re1ation between
them．’’He a1so虫ves theあ11owing examp1e：
（15）He went to university at the age of17，graauating six years1ater as a
CiVi1engineer．
D㏄1erck’s notion of’’s1oppy simu1taneity”is quite insightfu1，and it c1arifies
that over1ap can invo1ve s1oppiness． Dec1erck a1so uses the expression
”subjective rather than objective simu1taneity．” The word‘over1ap’can be
used to represent the notion of s1oppy or subjective over1ap． In （13）
（”0pening the d−rawer，he took out a book1etl’），the actions of opening the
drawer and taking out a book1et are interpreted to take p1ace as over1apping
w1th each other S1m11ar1y，m（14）（”The1orry sk1dded−o伍the roaa，narrow1y
missing a coup1e of cottages and enaed up in a丘e1d一”），the1orry’s skidaing
and its nanow escape血。m the cottages are du1y thought to over1ap1ogica11y．
As危r（15）（”He went to university at the age of17，graduating six
years1ater as a civi1engineer”），we notice the writer／speaker’s intention to
convey that going to and graduating from university be1ong to”the same
time interva1，”to borrow Dec1ark’s expression．A1though there is a six−year
gap between the two events objective1y，in the writer／speaker’s mind，it
seems as ifthe two events over1apped each other， In short，it is the notion of
over1ap that seems to motivate the use ofthe participia1construction．Thus，
the participia1phrase describes a situation that over1aps the description in
the main c1ause，no matter how s1opPi1y or subjective1y．
The ana1ysis in the previous chapter wou1d exp1ain why the participia1
18
constructionisunderstoodtoexpressthesequenceofevents．APre−PrtP
over1aps the beginning of the main event，whereas a Post−PrtP over1aps the
main event at whatever point．A situation that over1aps as ear1y as the
beginning of another event is reasonab1y thought to be first to occur． This
Ieads to the understanding that a Pre・PrtP expresses what precedes the
event aescribed in the main c1ause．Likewise，what is mentioned1ater cou1d−
be inferred−to be occurring second，and this1ead−s to the understanding that a
Post’PrtP expresses what制1ows the main event． In this way，the
participia1 construction is und−erstood− to express the sequence of
events／actions．We can thus reasonab1y conc1ude that one function of a
Pre．PrtP is to express the tempora1priority to the main c1ause，and−that one
function of a Post−PrtP is to describe an a㏄ompanying circumstance of the
main eVent，inC1uding itS reSu1t Or COnSequenCe．
2．2．Logica1priOr1ty
Now that the tempora1expression of the participia1construction has
been exp1ored，this section takes a1ook at how the participia1construction is
used for1ogica1expression． Common know1edge te11s us that what is
precedent can be the cause of what fo11ows，and what fo11ows can be the
resu1t or the consequence of what is preced−ent，but not vice versa．The
same not1on wou1d app1y to the usage ofthe part1c1p1a1construct1on It1s
rationa1fbr a Pre・PrtP to express the tempora1，causa1，conditiona1，or
concessiona1缶amework，which is1o紅。a11y antecedent to the main
description．The position in t五e sentence a1so makes a Post−PrtP express
the resu1t，e1aboration，speci丘。ation or exemp1iication which is1ogica11y
19
supP1ementary to the main description．
Though it is c1ear that theお11owing sentences（16a）and（17a）have
phrase positions which accord with1ogic，we sha11examine the positiona1
functions by changing the phrase positions in（16b）and一（17b）：
（16）a．Used economica11y one tin wi111astおr at1east six weeks．
（Swan455）
b．0ne tin wi111astおr at1east six weeks，used−economica11y．
（17）a．It rained危r two weeks on end，comp1ete1y ruining our ho1idlay．
（Swan455）
b．＊Comp1ete1y ruining our ho1iday，it rainea危r two weeks on end一．
The informants were asked about（16b）and一（17b）．In（16b）the existence of
the conjunction’’if’was thought desirab1e，not to say necessary． The
sentence（17b）was rejected by a11ofthe in危rmants．The una㏄eptabi1ity of
（17b）is predicted by hypothesis1，which requires a Pre−PrtP to d−escribe the
situation which over1aps the beginning of the main event，since the ho1iday
had−not been mined yet when it began to rain．As危r（16b），a1though a
Post’PrtP may describe a situation which has a sort ofconditiona1re1ation to
the main event，the inference ofthe1ogica1re1ation is not as strong as in the
case with a Pre−PrtP．As a resu1t，the existence of an exp1icit conjunction
wou1d be natura11y pre危rred．
The d1脆rence m the1og1ca1re1at1on w1th the ma1n c1ause ofPre−PrtPs
and Post−PrtPs wou1d be more noticeab1e in the case of the causa1
20
re1ationship．
（18）a．
The fo11owing sentences are instructive：
Knowing that she was1oved一，the woman died−in the arms of her
chi1dren peacefu11y．
b．
The woman died−in the arms of her chi1aren peacefu11y，knowing
that she was1oved．
The state of‘knowing that she was1oved一’wou1d be inferred to be the airect or
the principa1reason for her peacefu1d−eath in（18a），whi1e in（18b）we may
see other possibi1ities缶r her death in peace，such as good−care or d−eep faith
in re1igion． The sentences above d−emonstrate that Pre−PrtPs and
Post’PrtPs have di脆rent1ogica1re1ations with the main c1ause．
Thus，a tempora1，causa1，con砒iona1or concessiona1reIationship to the
main c1ause is more strong1y expressed by a Pre’PrtP than by a Post−PrtP．
We can c1aim that another fmction of Pre・PrtPs is to express the1ogica1
priority to the main c1ause，whereas another function of Post−PrtPs is to
express supP1ementary in危rmation to the main c1ause．
2．3．Percept1ona1pr1ority
Stump（1985：320）made an interesting observation as to the危11owing
sentences with d−i舐erent phrase positions：
（19）a．Countmg the number ofechoes，H11ary shouted h1s name．
b．Hi1ary shouted his name，counting the number ofechoes．
21
He states that in（19b）’’the counting may be understood to危11ow the
shouting（or，on a1ess1ike1y interpretation，to over1ap），but not to precede it．”
He then says conceming（19a），”the counting may be understooa to preced−e
the shouting．．．this is the most1ike1y interpretation．” However，he refers to
（19a）in a Note on page348and remarks，’’Odd1y it sti11seems quite possib1e
to infer that the shouting preced−ed−the counting．’’ He presents two
interpretations for（19a）：the counting preced−ed the shouting；the shouting
preced−ed−the countmg The趾st mterpretat1on requ1res our assumpt1on
that the actor shouted more than once，since it is impossib1e to count the
echo of a shout which has not been made．If the counting preceded the
shouting，we cannot but suppose that the actor counted−the echo ofthe shout
which had−a1read−y been maae（or the echo of some other thing），and−then
shouted一．
0ur1nbrmants common1y thought such assumpt1ons unnecessary1n
ord−er to interpret（19a）． They contended that it is possib1e for（19a）t0
describe the situation in which the actor shoutea on1y once and countea the
echo ofthat shout．Their interpretation agrees with Stump’s description in
the Note，and−it fo11ows that both（19a）and（19b）share the situation where
the shoutmg preceded the countmg Y6t，does no d−1f危rence ex1st between
the two sentences？We not1ce tbat there are two s1tuat1ons1magmab1e the
actor shouted the name with the intention ofcounting the number of㏄hoes；
the actor got the id−ea ofcounting the number ofechoes after the shout．
0ur inbrmants agreed that（19a）expresses the丘rst situation where
the actor shoutea with the intention to count，whi1e（19b）can express both
s1tuat1ons．Th1s丘nd1ng md1cates that the1n危rmants regard the shoutmg
22
and−the counting as simu1taneous actions and consid−er the action（lescribe（l
in the Pre’PrtP（i．e．，counting）to be prior in the actor’s intention to the
action described in the main c1ause （i．e．， shouting）． It 1eads to the
rea1ization that we can moai敢Stump’s description for the sentence（19a）by
adding the und−er1ined−part as fo11ows：”the counting may be und−erstood to
precede the shout1ng1n the actor’s1ntent1on”
Need1ess to say，it is impossib1e to describe in woras a11simu1taneous
events at once；we wou1d−have to aetermine in what sequence the sentence is
generated− The descr1pt1on order natura11y m1rrors our cogmt1on Thus
we rea1ize that the phrase position in the participia1construction re且ects the
speaker／writer’s intention to show what is perceptive1y prior to or a批er the
main event．A㏄ording1y，I contend that another function ofPre・PrtPs is to
express the perceptiona1priority to the main event，and Post−PrtPs describe
a supP1ementary perception ofthe main event．
Discussions of the phrase position have a1ways dea1t with simi1ar
phenomena；a Pre・PrtP expresses what is prior to the main event，and−a
PostIPrtP expresses what is supp1ementary to the main event．Let us reca11
the discussion ofthe fo11owing sentences：
（1）a．0pening the drawer he took out a revo1ver． （p．5）
b．He took out a revo1ver，opening the drawer．
（4）a．Not knowing what to d−o，I te1ephoned the po1ice．（p．8）
b．I te1ephoned the po1ice，not knowing what to do一
（19）a．Counting the number ofechoes，Hi1ary shoutea his name．（p．20）
b．Hi1ary shouted his name，counting the number ofechoes．
23
These sentences exemp1i蚊my proposa1that Pre・PrtPs d−escribe situations
preced−ing the main events in o㏄urrence，1ogic or perception，and Post’PrtPs
d−escribe a㏄ompanying circumstances of the main events and supp1y
inbrmatiVe detai1S．
The discussion of the d−ifferences between Pre・PrtPs ana Post−PrtPs in
Chapters1and2can be summarized−as fonows：Pre−PrtPs express an
action／event／state which over1aps the beginning of the main event without
d−enoting the termina1point，and they a1so express the tempora1，1ogica1or
perceptiona1 priority to the main event． Post−PrtPs express an
action／event／state which over1aps whatever point of the main event as an
a㏄ompanymg c1rcumstance w1thout denotmg the commenc1ng Pomt，and
Post−PrtPs a1so d−escribe accompanying circumstances of the main event to
supP1y in危rmative detai1s．
24
Chapter3
Recog口1t1on of the s1tuat1on
3．1．The ma1n c1ause and the pa式1c1p1aユphrase
Next，the difference between the description in the main c1ause and the
description in the participia1phrase is of interest． The fo11owing sentence
was submitted to the informants危r eva1uation：
（20）He picked up a stick，throwing it at a dog．
This sentence was not easi1y a㏄epted by the informants．Some in危rmants
said−the sentence was understandab1e but not natura1，and others said it was
unacceptab1e． I admit that my hypotheses d−o not give a convincing
exp1anation for the unnatura1ness of（20）、 Another perspective is need−ed
fbr further investigation．
Let us compare（20）to sentence（21）by Thomson and1〉【art1net（地ゴ
242），which te11s us that”when the s㏄ond−action forms part ofthe五rst，or is
a resu1t ofit，we can express the second−action by a present particip1e’’：
（20）He p1cked up a st1ck，t止mwmg1t at a dog
（21）He丘red一，wounding one ofthe bandits．
Let us imagine the two situations d−escribed−by the sentences，”He picked up
a stick and threw it at a aog”and”He丘red and wound−ed one ofthe banaits、”
25
Wb㎝we express these situations using the participia1constmctions，either
of the verbs in the sentences cou1d be changed into the particip1e． In
Eng1ish，the main event is genera11y expressed−by a丘nite verb and the
secondary event is genera11y expressed−by a noninite verb． In other words，
the subord−ination re且ects the idea of the writer／speaker as to which event
shou1d bear the main aescription．Therefore，sentence（20）is understood to
describe that‘to pick up a stick’carries more signi丘。ance than throwing it．
The interpretation of this sentence wou1d be natura11y confused，since our
common know1edge te11s that picking is usua11y an anci11ary action to
throwing． As a resu1t，we fai1to see the natura1ness of（20）． In sentence
（21），the actor’s趾ing is reasomb1y regarded as the main action with an
anci11ary event of wounding a bandit．Accord−ing1y the sentence（20）need−s
an apPropriate context to be interpreted natura11y． I propose that it is
possib1e．
The飴11owing Passage is丘。m肋θ肋‘由θ80〆肋凶bo刀Cbα功プ：
（22）For the1ast time，he1et her go and stepped into the tmck，sitting
there w1th tbe door open．Tears runnmg aown h1s cheeks Tears
running down her cheeks． S1ow1y he puued the door shut，hinges
creakmg （Wa11er142，bo1dfont1s not useamthe or1gma1）
This passage te11s that‘to step into tbe truck’carries more signi丘。ance than
sitting there．We wou1d step into the truck in order to sit there in norma1
situations． In this context，however，he stepped into the truck a批er an
emotiona11y painfu1moment．Stepping into the truck means he丘na11y
26
decided to1eave his1over for good，ana it is easi1y imagined that conducting
the action ofstepping into the tmck required great d−etermination．Here we
see the natura1ness ofthe verb‘step’having more signi丘。ance than the verb
‘Sit．’
This type of context is a1so required for（20）if the sentence is to sound
natura1．We cou1d imagine a situation such as this：A man has some
para1ysis in his right hand；he trainea hard and mastered the abi1ity to
throw w1th that hana，he1s now tra1nmg to p1ck up ob〕ects，wh1ch1s the
hardest task for him consiaering the para1ysis；he succeed−s in picking up a
stick允r the丘rst time．We can say，’’He picked up a stick，throwing it at a
aog．’’The reader／hearer wou1d understand why the action of picking up a
stick deserves the main expression．We a1so see that the sentence becomes
a successfuI and impressive aescription ofthe situation．The subordination
of the verbs re且ects the writer／speaker’s intention as to how the situation
shou1d be perceived by the read−er． The participia1 construction thus
succeeas in directing the reaaer几istener’s recognition of the situation
described．
3．2．The imp1ied subユ㏄t
The participia1construction is a1so wortb considering regarding the
imp1ied subject ofthe particip1e，A㏄ording to Quirkθ広a五（北ガ1126），the
先11owing sentence（23）a11ows three interpretations，since I，the absence of a
subject1eaves doubt as to which nearby e1ement is notiona11y the subj㏄t’’：
（23）I caught the boy waiting br my aaughter
27
（i）‘I caught the boy whi1e I was waiting for my d−aughter．’
［supP1ementive c1ause1
（ii）‘I caught the boy in the act of waiting for my daughter．’［verb
comp1ementat1on］
（iii） ‘I caught the boy who was waiting for my daughter．’
［Postmodi丘。ation1
Curme（1931：452）a1so stated that the particip1e’s subject is”not expressed
but imp1ied in the subject or the object ofthe principa1verb，”presenting the
fo11owing sentence with its paraphrase：
（24）‘I fee11t as a rare occas1on，o㏄urrmg as1t does on1y once1n many
yearS’（＝SinCe it OCCurS On1y OnCe in many yearS）．
The descriptions by Curme and−Quirkθc∂∠suggest that the syntax of the
part1c1p1a1construct1on a11ows syntact1c amb1gu1ty，wh1ch1eads to semant1c
ambiguity． A discussion of the imp1ied subject wou1d aeve1op our
understanding ofthe constructions． Our survey found that in the fo11owing
sentence，the particip1e subject was easi1y re1ated to a gent1eman，not the
sentence subject：
（25）Sach1ko and−Temosuke had not1ced，s1ttmg in the lobby，a gent1eman
they recogn1zed （Tan1zak1128，bo1d−font1s not usea1n the or1g1na1）
For compar1son，m the fouow1ng sentence（26）whose fimte verb1s a1terea，
28
the participia1subject was in危rred to be Sachiko and Teinosuke：
（26） Sachiko and Teinosuke had ㎜a允θ4 sitting in the 1obby 危r a
gent1eman they recogmzea．
It is supPosed that in the origina1sentence（25），the reader’s know1edge that
the verb‘not1ce’1s o丑en fo11owed by a part1c1p1e as1ts ob］ect1ve comp1ement
af晦。ts the in危rence ofthe particip1e subject． It is a1so true that a Post・PrtP
a1ways has potentia1ambigu−ity as to the imp1ied subject when the main
c1ause ends with a noun，d−ue to its stmctura1resemb1ance to the
nonrestrictive re1ative c1ause．
With the aim ofdiscoveri㎎what factor infers the participia1subject，I
conducted a survey using the制1owing sentence（27）：
（27）Hanako is happier than Taro，1iving in X city
A rea1city name was not usea，in order to avoid a biased inference．
Sentence（27）has the possibi1ity of being understood−in the fo11owing two
WayS：
（i）Hanako is happier than Taro，because she1ives in X city
（ii）Hanako is happier than Taro，who1ives in X citγ
I suspected that adaing”being ab1e to”or”being ob1igea to”to the Post・PrtP
1n（27）wou1d−revea1wh1ch poss1b111ty1s adopted by the m危rmants1n丘ndmg
29
the participia1subject．Four informants were asked who they thought1ived−
in X city in the fo11owing sentences：
（28）a．Hanako is happier than Taro，being ab1e to1ive in X city
b．Hanako is happier than Taro，being ob1iged to1ive in X city．
Though the in危rmants pointed−out that the above sentences do not have a
natura1iow of woras＿the且。w was sacri丘。ed for the purpose of the
survey＿the participia1subject was inferred to be Hanako in（28a）and Taro
in（28b）．This resu1t shows that di舐erent subjects were inferred between
（28a）and一（28b）in oraer to have a reasonab1e meaning缶。m each sentence；
the person who is ab1e to1ive in a certain city is genera11y thought to be
happier than the person who is ob1iged to1ive somewhere．The Post−PrtP in
（28a）was regarded as a supp1ementive c1ause，whereas the Post−PrtP in
（28b）was regarded as a postmodification．With this resu1t，1et us retum to
the aiscussion ofsentence（27）with the Post−PrtP”1iving in X city”：
（27）Hanako is happier than Taro，1iving in X city
The Post−PrtP in（27）can be regarded either as the supp1ementive phrase
which shares the subject with the main c1ause or as the post−moai坂ing
phrase of its preceding noun．
Contrary to（27），three info■mants inferエed the same subject in the
fo11owmg sentences，wh11e one mformant gave a a1価erent mference to each．
30
（29）a．Hanako envies Taro，being ob1iged to1ive in X city
b．Hanako envies Taro，being abIe to1ive in X city．
Three out of four informants answered that in both sentences Taro is the
subject of the particip1e，which1eads（29a）to bear the satirica1meaning：
Hanako envies Taro and Taro is ob1iged to1ive in X city． This resu1t
indicates that the informants pre危rred a satirica1interpretation of the
sentence to re1ating the particip1e to the sentence subject．
It seems that the Post−PrtPs in both（29a）ana（29b）have the tend−ency
to be regarded−as the modi丘。ation ofTaro，not as the supp1ementive phrase
whose subject is iaentica1to the sentence subject，Hanako．How shou1a the
resu1ts be exp1amedg M1any a1ct1onanes g1ve examp1e sentences m wh1ch
the verb‘envy’has doub1e objects，e．g．，she envies him his position．It is
reasonab1e to infer that the in缶rmation a允er”Hanako envies Taro”sbou1d
re免r to Taro，not to Hanako．The situation certain1y dif虹s血。m aea1ing
with the main c1ause”Hanako is happier than Taro，”which can be危11owed−
by the1nformat1on about e1ther Hanako or Taro．Thus，a reader／hearer’s
know1eage of the sentence structure a価ects the in危rences made regarding
the participia1subject，
The know1edge of the wording or the sentence structure restricts the
reader／hearer’s anticipation as to what in飴rmation sbou1d come a乱er a
certain portion of the sentence． Sentences（27），（28）and（29），which are
mad−e up，o比en bewi1dered the inbrmants and tbey were regard−ed as
awkward usages．In other woras，we can d−u1y conc1ude that a sentence
w1th a part1c1p1aI construct1on1s aaequate1y un（1erstood as1ong as1t glves
31
the m允rmat1on1n accor（lance w1th the readers／hearers’ant1c1pat1on w1thout
impeaing their iow ofthinking．
狛maoka（2005）argued−that the participia1construction describes how
the actor perceives his current situation，based−on the comprehensive
ana1ysis ofthe discourse ofthe participia1construction．It might be that the
part1c1p1a1sub〕ect1s1n危rred by trac1ng the percept1on of the actor Let us
consider the fo1Iowing sentence（30），whichYamaoka cites：
（30）At1ast，far m the a1stance，wa1k1ng onthe water，U1ysses saw a great
man，Big Chris．（晶”ψ∂刀172；bo1d font is not used−in the origina1）
A11ofthe informants thought that the person who was wa1king on the water
was Big Chris．This is an instance where the narrative viewpoint is of
concem．In the passage above，the narrator ta1ks from the standpoint of
U1ysses，and there此re the phrase”far in the distanceI’natura11y airects the
reader’s eyes away from U1ysses．The reader then gets the in危rmation
”wa1king on the water．” It wou1d be easy for the reader to infer that the
subject of”wa1king on the waterlI shou1a be not U1ysses but rather anything
in the aistance． As expected，at the en（1ofthe sentence the rea（1er丘nds the
words”a great man，Big Chris．”The subject of‘wa1king’is thus su㏄essive1y
in危rred−to be Big Chris． The phrase’，far in the distance”in（30）crucia11y
determmes the mference ofthe sub〕ect，smce the present survey showed that
in the fo11owing sentence（31），which1acks”far in the distance，”the subject
was in危med to be UIysses：
32
（31）At Iast，wa皿dI1g ont11e water，U1ysses saw a great man，B1g Chr1s
The sentence with the participia1phrase enab1es the reader to fo11ow the
perception of the agent，which he1ps丘n（l the appropriate subject of the
particip1e．
The viewpoint is a1so ofcomern in sentence（25）：
（25）Sachiko and Teinosuke had noticed，sitting in the1obby a gent1eman
they recognized．
In the context where Sachiko and Teinosuke are waiting危r the gent1eman to
whom they are to be introduced，the verb‘notice’shows the agents’
perception toward others． It wou1d−be natura1that the subject of the
particip1e‘sitting’is inferred−to be anyone e1se but the agents． In sentences
（25）and（30），which are in1iterary works，the participia1phrases are p1aced
in an e脆。tive position which enab1es the read−er to share the viewpoints of
the actor（s）and to recognize the current situation．We thus丘nd that an
1mportant funct1on of the part1c1p1a1construct1on1s to he1p the reader
identi蚊with the actor，
Last1y，a case in which on1y the context might infer the participia1
subject is considered．In the飴11owing passage from”The Unae危ated一”by
Hem1ngway，the bu11丘ghter lManue1has〕ust1aunched−h1mse1fon the bu11
（32）There was a shock，ana be危1t himse1fgo up in the air．He pushed
on the sword−as he went up and over，and it且ew out ofhis hana，He
33
hit the ground and−the bu11was on him． Mlanue1，1ying on the
ground，k1cked−at the bu11’s muzz1e w1th h1s s11ppered feet Kicking，
kicking，the bu皿a允er h1m，m1ss1ng hm皿his exc1tement，bumpmg
him w1th his heaa，drivmg the homs into the sand．Kick1ng11ke a
man keeping a ba11in the air，Manue1kept the bu11from getting a
c1ean thrust at him．（珊θ砒。κ8Co〃b80〆肋θ8C此血∠〃8w町261；
bo1d−font1s not used1n the ong1na1）
The inbrmants were asked who they wou1d−think was kicking in the
bo1d一一色nt sentence，，lKickmg，kickmg，t止e bu11a血er h1m，missing h1m in his
exc1tement，bumpmg him w1th his head，dr1vmg the homs mto the sand。一”
Au the in此rmants thought itwas Mlanue1who was kicking．For comparison，
the施uowing sentence was made by adding tbe verb‘came’a批er the bu11：
（33）Kick1ng，k1ck1ng，the bu11ω皿θa血er h1m，m1ssmg h1m m h1s
excitement，bumping him with his head，d−riving the homs into the
Sand．
Itwas mferred that the bu11was k1ck1ngm the sentence above It shou1d−be
notea that the ongma1bo1d−font text m（32）1s not a comp1ete sentence，as1t
1acks a verb We mt1ce that the part1c1p｝e sub〕ect1s mp11c1t1y understooa
血。m the context，since the bo1d一・font woraing is p1acea between the sentences
that te11Manue1was k1ckmg However，when the senten㏄1s comp1etea by
the verb，as shown in（33），it is in危rrea that the particip1e has the subject
which is identica1to the sent㎝ce subject．We thus see that when the
34
sentence g1ves no c1ue to the part1c1p1e sub］ect，the context determ1nes the
imp1ied−subject．
The present丘nd−ings indicate that severa1factors interact to in危r the
participia1subject． 児t，the most important丘nding shou1d be that in
authentic usages of the participia1construction in context，native speakers
have a1most no di飾。u1ty in丘nd−ing the imp1ied subject． Syntactic
ambiguity of the sentence se1d−om1eads to pragmatic ambiguity．On the
contrary，the participia1phrase is p1aced−in an e舐ective position which
enab1es the reader to share the actor’s perception．The outcomes ofthe tw0
discussions in this chapter can be summarized as fo11ows：one function ofthe
participia1phrase is to guid−e the readers to capture the situation described，
making them identi蚊with the actor’s viewpoint．
35
Chapter4
L1terary works
4．1−The descnpt1ve e脆。ts
Thompson（1983：46）ae丘nea the participia1phrase we discuss as the
detached−participia1 c1ause． She conaucted an extensive study that
revea1ed−a赴uitfu1aiscovery：she危und t血at the detached c1ause o㏄urs most
血equent1y in descriptive prose and−very rare1y in factua1or scienti丘。 writing．
She argued−the type of d−iscowse in which aetached particip1es abound is the
one that”attempts to describe by creating images．’’She used the term
”d−epictive”for l’discourse purporting to evoke an image．”Y査maoka（必〃．
112）a1so mad−e an exhaustive ana1ysis of the discourse of the participia1
construction and conc1ud−ea that the construction is frequent1y used to
express the actor’s current consciousness． He proposed−that the basic
function of a present particip1e is to express”atempora1re1ation，”and he
argued that being atempora1enab1es the present particip1e to describe the
actor’s current consciousness． Yamaoka presumed−that consciousness
transcends the concept oftime，meaning that it is atempora1．
Syntactic positions appear to be strong1y concerned with the descriptive
funct1ons ment1oned above The quest1on of how the phrase pos1t1on
re且ects the perceptiona1priority was discussed−in Chapter2，ana the next
chapter noted−that the subord−ination of the verbs in the sentence he1ps the
reader recognize the situation described． Chapter3a1so presented the
丘ndmg that the actor’s v1ewpomt a脆。ts the1n危rence ofthe1mp11ed sub〕ect
36
and a11ows the reader to share the recognition of the situation． These
arguments Iead me to propose that wr1ters use the part1c1p1a1construct1on
quite intentiona11y in order to invite the readers into the scene themse1ves．
Let us now investigate how the functions d−iscussed−above are brought
into e拙ect in1iterary works．
4−2．Descr1ption ofthe percept1om1pr1onty
We retumtothe pair ofthesentences giveninthe Introduction：
（34）He was th1rsty too and he got down on h1s knees and，bemg care制
not to jerk on the1ine，moved−as far into the bow as he cou1d−get and
reached the water bottIe with one hand一．
（35）He started to work his way back to the stem on his hands and−knees，
being caref阯I1ot to〕erk agaユnst the丘sh．
We see that（34）su㏄eeas in creatingmore tension and excitement than（35）
by adopting a Pre−PrtP， A Pre−PrtP expresses a temporaI，1ogica1or
perceptiona1priority to the description in the main c1ause．The Pre−PrtP in
（34）gives a kind−of cond−itiona1缶ame to the main c1ause．The readers
1magme that the actor starts to move makmg very sure not to］erk on the1me
and that h1s act1on shou1a be stoppea at the moment he finds the danger of
］erkmg ‘Bemg carefu1’actua11y precedes h1s move m the actor’s mtent1on，
and−that makes the readers thri11ed−a1ong with the actor whi1e he was
moving on the boat．
The readers are a1so suspended仕。m丘nd−ing out whether the actor
37
rea11y started to move or aia not unti1they come across the main c1ause．
The read−ersI tension bui1ds natura11y during the Pre−PrtP，and−it1eaas to the
excitement．In sentence（35）in contrast，tbe actor has a1read−y started
moving when the readers get the information that he was carefu1．The
readers wou1d have no time to get excited． The di価erences in the
perceptiona1priority tbe amount ofsuspense or excitement，exp1ainwhy（34）
is givenあr the description of his趾st attempt to move and（35）is given for
the d−escription ofhis second−attempt．Both times，the actor took the same
actions：he moved−ana he was carefu1． However，the participia1
constructions su㏄eed−in giving a ai拙erent sketch of the same situation
d−epending on the phrase position． That is，a Pre−PrtP a11ows the readers to
see into the actor’s mina by te11ing what is prior in his perception．
The next passage is fromλ刀刀θo∫0〃θ〃θ∂〃θ8by L．M．Mlontgomery．
This passage has a sentence with a Pre−PrtP，and−it is among on1y three
sentences with a Pre−PrtP in the丘rst丘乱y pages of the book，in contrast to
丘比y’fow sentences with a Post・PrtP in the same pages．The passage
describes a scene where the actor is shocked to know that she has not been
We1COmed：
（36）”0h，what sha11I ao？ I’m going to burst into tears！’I
Burst mto tears she d1d．S1ttmg down on a cha止by the tab1e，
血ngingher㎜mso皿tupon1t，andb㎜初ngher血㏄mthem，she
proceeded to cry storm11y （26；bo1d−font1s not used m the or哩na1）
The bo1d一一色nt text shou1d be considered to re且ect some intention ofthe writer，
38
a1ong with its inversed−preceding sentence． This is the instance where
simu1taneous actions with the main event are describea in the Pre・PrtP．
This sentence is successfu1in creating a vivid picture of the actor’s act．
Simu1taneous actions are usua11y d−escribed in a Post・PrtP．However，as I
have argued一，a Pre−PrtP can describe the actions as being prior to the main
event in the perception of both the actor and the narrator．As a resu1t，the
act1on descr1bed−m a Pre・PrtP natura11y ga1ns more prom1nence and−
emphasis in the sentence．We五nd that the exaggeration ofthe description
in passage（36）perfect1y matches the exaggerated conduct ofthe actor．
Biberθ宕θ五（必〃．831）says，”C1ear1y，五na1position is the unmarked
choice for non一五nite adverbia1c1auses in a11registers、” They a1so note that
”in丘。tion，the most common non一五nite c1auses areノ刀8・c1auses”and they
consid−er it interesting to ask”why丘。tion and academic prose have s1ight1y
higher proportions in initia1position．” 0ne cou1d−argue that if one of the
purposes of nove1s is to give a vivid−aescription of the actor’s actions or
emotions，it is natura1for nove1writers to try to achieve that purpose by
adoptingPre・PrtPs．APre−PrtPshowstheactor’sperceptiona1priorityand
a11ows the readers to1oolk into the actor’s mind．
Though it was pointed−out that Pre−PrtPs have the e脆。t ofpainting a
more vivid sketch of the events than d−o Post・PrtPs，it might be dif丘。u1t危r
nat1ve speakers of Japanese to rea11ze the d−escr1pt1ve ef危。t of Pre−PrtPs
That is because in Japanese，the suborainate c1auses unmarked1y precede
the main c1auses．Therefore，when the passages we d−iscussea above are
trans1ated into Japanese，the readers might not be abIe to sense the sty1istic
e脆。ts inthe origina1works．We mayvagueIy see the trace ofthe di舐erence
39
in the paired sentences from mθ0〃M身〃mゴ肋θ3θ∂，when we notice that
the trans1ator adopts a somewhat o1d・fashioned and1iterary word一色r the
Pre−PrtP in（34），which is‘刀〆in contrast to‘刀∂ノ価r sentence（35）．
Conceming the ai描erence between Japanese and−Eng1ish，we can
consid−er the fo11owing two passages缶。m Japanese nove1s，in trans1ation：
（37）‘Look in the top drawer on the right．’
Puckering her I1ps as though she were about to k1ss the m1rror，
Sachiko took up her1ipstick． ‘Did you丘nd it？’
（Tanisizaki2；bo1d font is not used in the origina1）
（38）lMuch mtr1gued，I took the1etter w1th my free hand一
（Natsume93；bo1a font is not used−in the origina1）
Actua11y，the or1gma1Japanese sentences descr1be the act1ons m the
passages above using the partic1e”Cθ、” Though it is true that the Japanese
partic1e”Cθ”can express the simu1taneity，su㏄ession and causa1ity of the
actions，just1ike the Eng1ish participia1construction can do，there is no
doubt that the Japanese origina1sentences express that”she took up a stick，
and−then puckerea her1ips’’ana■’I took the1etter ana I was intrigued一（by its
thickness）．” The Eng1ish passages above cou1d be regard−ed as
mistrans1ations．However，we can presume that the Eng1ish trans1ations
above cou1d−be adequate when the trans1ators thought that the actors
cond−ucted−two simu1taneous actions， That is because the action of
puckermg or bemg mtr1gued1s mdeed−1mpress1ve and−un危rgettab1e m the
or1gma1passages A Pre・PrtP can descr1be the act1ons more promment1y
40
There remains a possibi1ity that the trans1ators intentiona11y d−eformed the
action order to put emphasis on the more impressive action．Mloreover，it
was suggested−that the wide variety of usages common1y attributed to the
Eng1ish participia1construction and the Japanese particip1e ”Cθ” can
somet1mes cause m1sunderstandmgs between the two1anguages
4．3．The e施。ts of11ngering images
Our next topic is the descriptive e価ects that Post−PrtPs can yie1d． The
丘rst i11ustration is the fo11owing passage，where the actor is wa1king on the
ridge−Po1e ofa roof：
（39）Then she swayed一，1ost her ba1ance，stumb1ed一，staggered and−fe11，
sh伍ng d−own over the sun−baked roofand crashmg o丘1t through the
tang1e of V血gmユa creeper beneath＿a11before the d−1smayed c1rc1e
be1ow cou1d−g1ve a s1mu1taneous，terr1丘ed−shr1ek
（Montgomery155；bo1d font is not used−in the origina1）
The actions of s1iding ana crashing gain ate1ic aspects and−can be imagined
to be continuing as1ong as the reader prefers．We might丘nd such e価ects
aisappear in the fo11owing passage（40），where the particip1es are a1terea
into丘nite verbs：
（40）Then she swayed，1ost her ba1ance，stumb1ed，staggered−an“e11，8”’a
down over the sun−baked roofand一αra曲θaoff1t through the tang1e of
Virginia creeper beneath＿a11be肪re the d−ismayed circ1e be1ow cou1（1
41
give a simu1taneous，terri丘ed shriek．
Here，aI1ofthe actions are thought to take p1ace at rather regu1ar interva1s，
and we may丘nd−that the passage1oses its d−escriptive e拙ect．The sentence
with the participia1construction is not monotonous but can be rhythmica1or
me1odious，since we fee1as if the theme was being p1ayed with its
a㏄ompaniment1ike in music；the丘nite verbs p1ay the theme and drive the
p1ot forward，whi1e the particip1es p1ay the part of a㏄ompanying e脆。ts．
The me1odiousness can be an important ef五ect ofthe participia1construction．
APost−PrtPisa1sousefu1forproaucinga1ongpauseafterthephrase．
The制1owing sentence is血。m乃θ助θθc加80〆五〃舳と0加〃∂：
（41）They wou1d g1ve me anAEr1can name，Barack，or”b1essed一，”be11ewng
that in a to1erantAmer1ca yo皿mme1s no bamer to su㏄ess．
（0bama24；bo1d font is not used in the origina1）
0n the recording of this speec止we hear a round of app1ause a免er this
sentence．Whichfact aiHewish to1ingerin the minds ofthe auai㎝ce，the
fact that his parents gave him anA血ican name or the fact that they be1ievea
in a toIerantAmerica？ The position ofthe participia1phrase shows his wish
that the1atter message wou1d1ast in the aud−ience． In addition，the
non丘mte允rm”be11evmg”w1thout the sub〕ect su㏄eeds m g1vmg the etema1
ana anonymous character to the be1ief，even though it shou1d1itera11y refer
to his parents’past act．This sentence demonstrates how Post．PrtPs can
produce1ingering messages which may1ast beyond time and space．
42
Participia1phrases are often p1acea on both sides ofthe main c1ause as
f0110WS：
（42）With tbe止knapsacks bu1ging，the chi1dren waited to hear what the
head−master had to say，whi1e beyon（l them the famous waterfa11色11
m boom1ng torrents，making a beaut冊1rh対hm．
（Kuroyanagi139；bo1d危nt is not used−in the origina1）
0ur危。us shi批s from the c1ose・up view ofthe knapsacks，to the chi1dren，to
the waterfa11，and−at1ast to the torrents，which become zoomed in on with a
beautifu1rhythm that1ingers in our ears． This sentence is so
1mage−evok1ng＿11ke a丘1m＿that the readers m1ght fee1they are gazmg at
the view themse1ves．This passage demonstrates my argument that the
position of the participia1phrases directs the readers’viewpoint and brings
about identi丘。ation with the narration． It shou1d−be pointed out again that
the Post−PrtP in the above sentence succeeds in aescribing the torrents ofthe
waterfaI1as ifthey wou1d pu1se forever with a beautifu1rhythm．
In肋θM泌ゴ。如＆b広θ〃，the chapter witb a great many participia1
phrases is the one where the heroine Sachiko reca11s‘the丘reny hunt’she
experienced that night in her bea．In the Japanese origina1，we find−many
uses of representations‘．．．．’，which are intenaed to inaicate something
inaescribab1e． It is not coincidenta1that this chapter in Eng1ish tl＝ans1ation
inc1udes p1enty ofPost・PrtPs，as we see in the危11owing Passage：
（43）Down mto the餌asses on the bank，and there，glidj−ng out over the
43
water，in1ow arcs1ike tlhe sweep ofthe餌asses． 0n down the river，
and−on and on，were趾e且ies，1ines of them wavering out血。m this
bank and the other and．back aga1n，sketching theu＝uncerta1n tracks
of1ight d−own c1ose to the surface ofthe water，hiωen丘。m outs1de by
the grasses．．．．．Sach1ko危1t a surg1ng1ns1de her，as though she
were〕om1ng them，soa−ring and d1ppmg a1ongthe surface ofthe water，
cutting her owI1uncertain track of1ight．
（Tan1zak13211bo1d font1s not used1n the or1g1na1）
Sachiko thinks a ireiy hunt is”something not to be painted，but set to
music，”and the readers come across such sentences as，”The events of the
d−ay passed through Sachiko’s mind in no particu1ar order”and”She cou1（1
have been dreaming．”The readers are to1d that when Sachiko opened−her
eyes，she saw”a血amed motto’’whose words read’’Pavi1ion ofTime1essness．”
The images in this chapter owe much of their visionary and enchanting
depiction to the repeated use of the participia1phrases，as wou1d be
noticeab1e in passage （43） above． The Post−PrtPs in （43） succeed in
fascinating the readers by the never−ceasing images of the丘reiies且。ating
dream・1ike beyond the concepts ofspace and time．
4．4．Descnption ofthe emot1ona1rea1ity
Last1y we sha11see how the participia1construction expresses an
emotiona1truth which eme㎎es赴。m inside of the actor．In the fo11owing
passage the actor，Nick，visited−an Indian camp with his father，where he
watched a baby being bom and witnessed the suici（le of the baby’s father．
44
Now Nick is on the boat home，with his father rowing．
（44） ”Do1adies a1ways have such a hara time having babies？’’
Nick askea．
”No，that was very，very exceptiona1．”
’Why didhe ki11himse1f，Daday？”
”I don’t know，Nick． He cou1d−n’t stand things，I guess．”
’’Do many men ki11themse1ves，Daddy？”
”Not very many，Nick．I1
”Do many women？’’
”Hard1y ever．”
’’Don’t they ever？”
”0h，yes．They do sometimes．”
”Daddy？”
”地S．”
”Where didUnc1e George go？”
”He’11tum up a11right．”
’1Is d−ying hard，Dad−dy？”
”No，I think it’s pretty easy，Nick．It a11depends．11
They were seated−in the boat，Nick in the stem，his father rowing．
The sun was coming up over the hi11s．A bass jumpea，making a
circ1e in the water．Nick trai1ed his hand in the water．It fe1t warm
in the sha叩。hi11ofthe morning．
In the ear1y morn1ng on the1ake s1tt1ng m the stern of the boat
with his father rowing，lhe fe1t quite sure that he wou1a never die．
45
（Hemingway：”Indian Camp”in me舳。rC8Co〃b80〆且刀θ8C此〃∠〃8w町
95；bo1d fbnt is not used in the origina1）
The two facts＿that Nick was sitting in the stem ofthe boat with his father
rowing，and−that he fe1t quite sure he wou1d never die＿cou1d not be
regarded−as cause and−ef追ect，which is expressed with an exp1icit conjunction．
坐t the readers can fee1that for Nick the two facts ofsitting and危e1ing were
indispensab1y tied−together．The read−ers are sure that Nick wou1d never
have be1ieved in his immorta1ity but缶r his current situation．The position
of the participia1phrase in the sentence makes the read−ers rea1ize the
emotiona1truth in Nick． The readers are convinced that a kind−of
psycho1ogica1rea1ity ties the two facts together． Truth conceivea at the core
of one’s heart wou1a be beyond1ogica1or objective expressions． Such inner
iI1duced rea1ity is not described−more e1oquent1y than in the sentence with
the participia1phrase． The participia1construction intrigues the readers，
since its imphcitness a1Iows the readers to sympathize with the emotiona1
de1icacy ofthe actors．It is the read−ers themse1ves，after a11，who are meant
to appreciate the interpretations of the text．
Thus the participia1construction，which simp1y presents two c1auses
s1de by s1d−e，embraces a swpnsmg amount of messages The read−ers are
a1so induced−to use their own subj㏄tive imagination．As a resu1t，the
readers may丘na themse1ves”sharing the experience’I with the actors．I
propose that the ef亀。ts of the participia1constl＝uction 1ie here in the
emotiona1interactions between the actor and−the read−er，which might be
manipu1ated by the writer．
46
Conc1us1on
This paper has brieny exp1oI1ed the dif危rent functions fu1五11ea by the
position of participia1phrases in sentences with subord−inates composed of
particip1es，which are re血rred−to herein as the participia1constructions．
The ways that the ai脆rent functions are brought into e脆。t in1iterary
works were a1so touched on． The fo11owing is a brief summary and
COnC1uSiOn．
Chapter1described the resu1ts ofin此rmant surveys and an ana1ysis；it
became c1ear that the participia1phrase ahead ofthe main c1ause（Pre’PrtP）
expresses an action／event／state which over1aps the begiming of the main
event，whereas the participia1phrase which fo11ows the main cIause
（Post−PrtP）expresses an action／event／state which over1aps whatever point of
the main event as an accompanying circumstance．
In Chapter2，the d1脆rent funct1ons of Pre−PrtPs and Post・PrtPs were
discussed一．It was arguea that Pre−PrtPs express the tempora1，1ogica1，or
perceptiona1priority to the main c1ause，and Post−PrtPs express informative
supp1ements to the main c1ause regard1ess ofthe event order．
Chapter3proposed that the choice regard−ing the subol＝dination of the
c1auses in a participia1construction ref1ects the writer／speaker’s intention as
to how the s1tuat1on1s to be recogn1zed I argued that the actor’s percept1on
p1ays an important ro1e in inferring the imp1ied subject ofthe particip1es．
Chapter4app11ed the11ngu1st1c丘nd−1ngs to the apprec1at1on of11te■ary
works． The part1c1p1a1construct1ons su㏄eed m g1vmg a d1館rent sketch of
the same situation depending on the phrase position．Pre・PrtPs describe
47
the action vivid一｝y ana1et the reaaers look into tlhe actor’s mind by te11ing
what is prior in his perception．A potentia1e描ect of Post・PrtPs is their
ab111ty to produce11nger1ng1mages m the mmd ofthe reader Th1s1ast1ng
e脆。t can enchant the readers w1th a v1s1onary and fasc1natmg dep1ct1on
The part1c1p1a1 construct1on mtr1gues readers by a11owmg the
identi丘。ation with the actors．The readers are ind−uced to use their own
subjective imagination and participate in the appreciation of the text．The
participia1construction may he1p readers a㏄ess an emotiona1truth which
m1ght not be su1tab1y d−escnbed−by exp11c1t express1ons usmg outs1d−e
conjunctions． The bene丘ts of the participia1 construction 1ie in the
emotiona1interactions among the actor，the reader and the writer．
This investigation sheds some1ight on the descriptive functions
fu1丘11ed−by the phrase position，to which proper attention has not been
drawn． Further research shou1a be conducted regarding phrases with the
perfect or past particip1e，the conjunction or the participia1subject，as this
paper focused on1y on the dif距rences between the initia1position and the
丘na1position of the participia1phrases headed by the present particip1e．
However，the1arger goa1is to app1y t11e1inguistic丘ndings to the
appreciation of1iterature． It wou1d be quite grati蚊ing to the author if this
modest e1ucid−ation of a protean d−evice，the participia1construction，wou1d
he1p reaaers exp1ore the危rti1e1and of1iterature．
48
Note
1the backgrounas ofthe in允rmants
natiOna1ity
1
USA
2
3
Austra1ia
4
USA
USA
5
6
7
8
9
U．K
Austra1ia
10
Canada
USA
New Zea1and
USA
SeX
m
mf
m
m
mf
m
m
m
age
50s
30s
30s
30s
50s
50s
30s
30s
20s
20s
academic background一
University（MA）
University（BA）
University（BA）
University（BA）
University（MA）
University（BA）
University（BA）
University（MA）
University（BA）
University（BA）
49
Refbrences
Biber，Doug1as，et a1，Zo刀8㎜∂刀0〃〃血〃1o〆助〇五θ刀∂〃ゴ”h切θ刀肋助b力．
Har1ow：Peason Education，1999．
Crume，George0。昂㎜C肌Tokyo：1Maruzen Company1931．
Dec1erck，Renannt．λ0o〃ρrθ五θ”8ルθ刀θ80〃φCルθθ〃㎜㎜〃。fル8カもみ．Tokyo：
Kaitakisha，1991．
Hemingway Emest．珊θ0〃M加mゴ肋θ3θ∂、New“rk：Simon U Schuster，
1995．
一．珊θ8ゐ。点8Co”ゴθ80f丑棚θ8C肋〃ノ刀8w∂γNew Ybrk：Char1es Scribner’s Sons，
1966．
Kubota，Masato．”On the Fundamenta1Property ofParticipia1Constructions in
Eng1ish．”0乃必∂0bルθエ側‘ヶ0θ〃8o．8α万五∂児。〃30α．ノ3（2004）：1＿26，
Kuroyanagi，Tetsuko．〃κo・oゐ∂パ皿θ〃〃θα〃∂C肋θ㎜bdow．“ans．D
Britton．Tokyo：Koaansha Intemationa1．1982．
MontgomerX L．Ml．」刀〃。戸0〃θ刀0∂〃θ＆Harmondsworth：Penguin Books，
1925．
Natsume，Soseki．地女。エu Trans．Edwin McC1e11an．Chicago：Henry Regnery
Company，1957．
0bama，Barack．肋θ助θθo加80f肋〃。女0加〃∂．Ed．CNN Eng1sih Press．
Tokyo：Asahi Shinbunsha，2008．
Quirk，Rando1ph，et a1．λ0b」㎜ρrθ力θ〃8ルθθ油〃〃∂γo〆泌θ励8カk力工∂刀gα∂θθ．
London：Longman，1985．
Saroyan，Wi11iam．皿θ∬α〃mα㎜θ伽．New兄rk：De11Pub1ishing，1943．
50
Stump，Gregory T．〃θ8θ〃∂刀此陥エ油ゐ〃ケ。〃加。ノ肘θCb刀8かαo肋孤
Dordrencht：Reide1．1985．
Swan，Mlichae1．乃伽此∂ノ批8独ゐ0曲8θ．Oxおrd：Ox此rd University Press，1980．
Tanizaki，Junichiro、珊θM身〃。如＆bCθ狐Trans．E．G．Seidensticker．New Ybrk：
A1血ed A．Knop￡1993．
Thompson，SandoraA．，’Grammar and−Discourse：The Eng1ish Detached
Participia1C1ause．”刀㎏ooα〃θ月θ岬ρθo方γθ80〃易㎜ねx Ed．F K1ein−Andrew．
New Ybrk：Academic，1983．43＿65．
Thomson，A．J．andA．V Martinet．λ乃ηo此∂ノ肪ψ劫0〃皿㎜肌3rd．Ox此rd：
Ox危rd University Press，1980．
Tomozawa，Hirotaka．”Aspects ofthe Sematics ofthe Eng1sih Participia1
Construction．’’助払6カム加8α危方b20．2（2003）：493＿517．
Wa11er，RobertJames、珊θ肋I ｾθ80戸M身挑。刀α㎜ヶ．New此rk：Grand
Centra1．1992．
Y註maoka，Minoru，3α刀莇汝α刀。刀mw∂3〃刀8θ虹Tokyo：Eihosha，2005．

Analysis of Hypergeometric Distribution Software Reliability Model

b) rtIr,?)i.kr? 4 - The Student Room

J 副醐 則 罰朝 到 I J 到 訓剣 罰 劉

Document 3965190

Answers

Public Announcement

Playgroup YPS - Yokine Primary School

TESLA Techn。ー。gy C。ab。rati。n

class xi, 2010 ico paper

A^l^ 4-- - wbscvet