I. John kicked a stone, falling into a pool.
II. Kicking a stone, John fell into a pool.
I like to know that when they write #I, what do they want to emphasis?
In I., it's quite clear that there is a direct
cause and effect relation. That means that first John kicked a stone and this is what caused him to fall.
The same meaning is possible in II., but it isn't quite so clear. Sentence I is better.
From the website:
- To give the result of an action
The bomb exploded, destroying the building.
Yes, that's right. This is similar to sentence I above, with the same kind of 'cause + effect' meaning.
- To give the reason for an action
Knowing she loved reading, Richard bought her a book.
Yes, that's one possible meaning of putting the participle phrase first. The 'cause + effect' relation is a bit different here.
Another possible reason to put the participle phrase first is when you want to say that two things take place
at the same time:
Stretching her arms, she yawned.
In this example, both stretching and yawning happen at the same time.
With your sentence II., since you've put the participle phrase first, we naturally want to make the interpretation that kicking and falling happen at the same time, but it's hard to imagine how kicking and falling can occur simultaneously, so we have to make the cause and effect interpretation instead.