Don, you bring up an interesting point. What is the defining quality
of a nonrestrictive participial phrases? I think both Martha and
Sophie are onto the answer-something to do with "modifying" the
subject. But in the example you give, the issue can change if you
replace "I" with a noun, making it possible for the phrase to link to
the subject of the clause (I dislike the term "modify" to explain
this relationship.

1. George could hear him down in his workshop, hammering away on his
latest project.
2. Hammering away on his latest project, George could hear him down
in the basement.
3. George, hammering away on his latest project, could hear him down
in the basement.

In sentence 1, the phrase could be ambiguous (I think), but it seems
to relate to "him" since it follows "him." Is proximity the answer?

Sentences 1 and 2 claim that George is doing the hammering.

I think, given two nouns that a participial phrase can link to,
proximity and order has a lot to do with how you interpret the
sentence. Look what happens if you change the subject to "he."

4. He could hear him down in his workshop, hammering away on his
latest project.
5. Hammering away on his latest project, he could hear him down in
the basement.
6. ?He, hammering away on his latest project, could hear him down in
the basement.

Well, I think 6 is questionable as an English sentence. But 4 and 5
are ok and seem to bear out the proximity issue. I'd say that
"hammering . . . "  links to the object "him" in 4 and to the subject
"he" in 5.

I suspect that more than proximity is going on, though I'd be hard
pressed to explain it more fully.  I think that more than modifying a
subject noun is going on as well, though both explanations work to
some extent.

Is the "him" really a subject in some deep structure construction
that it is raised out of?

I could hear ____________ .
He was down in his workshop.
He was hammering away on his latest project.

And does this all become ambiguous if there are other deep structure
possibilities as sources? Or how would we handle the problem in a
principles and parameters model? I guess the subjects and object
would be in different thematic relationships with the participial and
prepositional phrases. The fact that we can play variation upon
variation is the major reason I shy away from theoretical issues
(though I find them intriguing) and basically stick to surface
explanations. I'll go back to proximity, if you don't mind, even if
it doesn't explain everything.

Oh, well! I think I got away from the central issue about what makes
a phrase nonrestrictive. And it's too late to go back now. Max




>Now's the time for me to jump in with a question that's been on my mind for
>a while. Sophie points out that the participial phrase at the end acts like
>a foreshortened sentence and thus refers back to the subject. Martha adds
>good examples and rightly advocates the use of the nonrestrictive
>participles.
>
>But what about one like "I could hear him down in his workshop, hammering
>away on his latest project"? I see that this could be written "I could hear
>him hammering away on his latest project down in the basement."
>
>Is the ability to be written as restrictive, which seems to coincide with
>the inability to float as a free modifier, the defining quality of this
>participial phrase that keeps it from getting all the way back to modify the
>subject?
>
>Don Stewart
>--
>Keeper of the memory and method of Francis Christensen.
>WriteforCollege.com
>The Stewart English Program (epsbooks.com)
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

Max Morenberg, Professor
Department of English
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
[log in to unmask]

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/