We can reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases. Why?

p.s. having eaten dinner is just another example of a Nonfinite Clause, and of course all the above applies.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by X Mode

1. After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.
2. After eating dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

Well, first of all, sentence 2. is not a reduction of sentence 1. "eating", a gerund, replaces the subject-verb pairing, "I ate", thereby altering/ changing the status of "After". That is, in 1. "After" functions as a subordinate conjunction (i.e., the head of a clause), whereas in 2., "After" functions as a preposition (i.e., the head of a phrase). When we change the status of the predicate, a syntactic Domino Effect occurs.

Well, let's look at sentence 1.:

1. After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

In 1., After I ate dinner is a clause: it has a subject (I) and a verb (ate), and, since that clause answers the question, "When?" it functions as an adverb(ial) clause.

With adverbial clauses, it's possible to omit the subject-verb pairing, the result of which produces what appears to be a phrase:

While we were traveling, we visited many temples. (Adverb Clause)
While traveling, we visited many temples. (Elliptical Adverb Clause)

Similarly, and with regards to ellipsis, if the subject in both the subordinate clause and the dependent clause are the same, then the subject and its verb, being deemed redundant in the subordinate clause, is often omitted, like this,

After I ate dinner, .... (Adverb Clause)
After dinner, ..... (Adverb Phrase)

In this case, the clause After I ate dinner is altered, becoming a phrase, After dinner. It's not an elliptical clause. Clauses carry tense.

On that note, let's now look at our example sentence 2.

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

After eating expresses the same meaning as "After I ate dinner", however, we are not dealing with ellipsis here, but an alteration. That is, nothing has been omitted from the context (Cf. After I ate dinner => After dinner), rather, eating replaces ate. In this case, After is a preposition with the gerund eating as its object.

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.
Form: Preposition+Gerund (Phrase)

1. After I ate dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air.
Form: Subordinating conjunction+Subject+Verb+Object

Source: Elliptical Adverb Clauses

All the best, :D

[Steven D]

I understand what you mean, Casiopea.

However, I'm still functioning with the idea that sentence number two is an adverb clause reduction. It's reduced from a clause to a phrase

[Red5]

Originally Posted by X Mode

... that sentence number to is an

Ooooops!!!

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by X Mode

I understand what you mean, Casiopea.

However, I'm still functioning with the idea that sentence number two is an adverb clause reduction, reduced from a clause to a phrase

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

You mean ellipsis, not reduction, right? OK, and if so, could you show me what elements within "After eating" you think have been omitted? I just want to get a better idea of what you're proposing.

All the best, :D

Psst, one doesn't function with an idea. :wink:

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

2. After eating, I stepped outside for some fresh air.

You mean ellipsis, not reduction, right? OK, and if so, could you show me what elements within "After eating" you think have been omitted? I just want to get a better idea of what you're proposing.

All the best, :D

Psst, one doesn't function with an idea. :wink:

I'm not proposing anything. I was thinking more about why one form would be used instead of the other in a given situation or context. I was thinking of the type of discourse in which each given form would be more likely to occur.

As far as what to call the grammatical form goes: That's what Azar calls it in "Understanding and Using English Grammar", and I'm glad to go along with it. So, to me, it's an adverb clause reduction, or an adverb clause reduced to a prepositional phrase.

After he ate - Drop the subject, and make the verb -ing.

Of course, the subject in the clause that follows has to be the same as the person or thing doing the action in the preceding phrase. The phrase, could, of course, follow - reverse the order of the phrase and the clause.

:)

[Steven D]

Originally Posted by Red5

Ooooops!!!

Thanks,

8) :)

There is no doubt whatsoever that after eating dinner contains an active Verb Group (ie a Process - a VG that is not merely part of a postmodification), and so is a clause. In this case the Process is Nonfinite (ie it carries no Tense or Modality).

Perhaps some here have never come across the Finite before?

Also, Having eaten dinner, I stepped outside for some fresh air is a perfectly valid, perfectly natural and quite typical English two clause construction making use of a Nonfinite and a Finite Clause.

In my previous post I tried to show how Nonfinite Clauses establish inarguable propositions, ie those that impose no Tense restrictions on the clauses to which they are subordinate.

Azar doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Steven D]

There is no doubt whatsoever that after eating dinner contains an active Verb Group (ie a Process - a VG that is not merely part of a postmodification), and so is a clause. In this case the Process is Nonfinite (ie it carries no Tense or Modality). <<


I'm not sure I understand. Action is shown, but I don't see how it can be called a clause. A clause has a verb. The phrase "after eating dinner" has a "verbal", which is not exactly the same as an "action verb".

So, you wouldn't think that "after eating dinner" modifies "He stepped outside for some fresh air." by saying "when he stepped outside". Could we think of it as an adverbial prepositional phrase?

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/adverb.htm

Adverbial prepositional phrase: Movable phrases that begin with prepositions and modify verbs. Example: We washed our hands after playing outside.


http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/St...es.html#reduce

REDUCTION of ADVERB CLAUSES to ADVERB PHRASES
(only possible if subject is the same in the main clause) CONJUNCTION

http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/St...es.html#reduce




:)

[Steven D]

Patrick

Q. (from Bonnie) I know a dependent clause has a subject and verb while a prepositional phrase does not. However, I am not positive what to call this sentence beginning:

"After scoring the winning touchdown, the player was carried off the field."

A. Bonnie, It’s called a “modifying” adverbial phrase. It’s a reduced form of the dependent clause “after he scored the winning touchdown.” It’s a very common construction in English.

Of course, an adverb clause can be changed to a modifying phrase only when the subject of the adverb clause and the subject of the main clause are the same. So in your sample sentence the modifying phrase is possible because “player” is the subject of both the main clause and the underlying dependent clause.

Note that it’s not correct to use the modifying clause in the following sentence.

“After scoring the winning touchdown, the spectators cheered loudly.”

In this sentence, “spectators,” the subject of the main clause, is different than the subject of the underlying dependent clause (“player”).

Lowell

http://www.udel.edu/eli/g11.html