Golly, Bill, I thought my explanation was straightforward too, when I
identified the structure as an absolute phrase--that is a noun followed by
a participial phrase as a modifier.  When participles modify nouns, their
relationship is a subject/predicate relationship--a  reduced clause, which
you have illustrated.  When the participle is passive (fixed) the
underlying clause is passive.

I suspect you know enough grammar to respond to Martha's analysis!

Martha

>While I can't claim to know enough grammar to respond to Martha's analysis
>of the construction in question, I confess I don't understand why the
>"nonfinite, reduced passive clause" can't be explained in a straightforward
>way:
>
>
>I stood still, and I fixed my whole attention upon the motion of her fingers.
>
>I stood still, and my whole attention was fixed (by me) upon the motion of
>her fingers.
>
>(eliminate the "was" and the "and")
>I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers.
>
>In other words, "attention" is the direct object.
>
>Bill
>
>
>>Dear ATEG Listers:
>>
>>In the following sentence, "I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the
>>motion of her fingers, " (Helen Keller), I analyze 'my whole attention fixed
>>upon the motion of her fingers' as a nonfinite, reduced passive clause.  I
>>was trying to explain this to my class recently, and I found that though I am
>>convinced that 'fixed' is nonfinite, none of my usual explanations worked.
>>It simply refused to reveal itself neatly as nonfinite.
>>
>>When I am working with clauses having transitive verbs, I usually use passive
>>transformations as a way of clarifying for myself the elements of that
>>clause.  After my students had trouble seeing the clause as nonfinite, I
>>spent a few minutes after class working it over.  I first tried to make it
>>work as a simple transitive verb sentence with  'fixed' as a finite verb: 'my
>>whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers.'  What I discovered is
>>that although it is possible to write and say such a sentence, it doesn't
>>behave like a transitive verb sentence, or like other clauses with 'fix' as
>>their verb.
>>
>>For example
>>'The man fixed the picture to the wall.'  This is easily made passive:
>>'The picture was fixed to the wall by the man.'  However, in the case of 'my
>>whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers,' I cannot make it
>>passive because there is no direct object, yet 'fixed' seems to call for a
>>direct object.
>>
>>If I change the sentence to 'my whole attention fixed itself upon the motion
>>of her fingers,' the passive version is *Itself was fixed upon the motion of
>>her fingers by my whole attention.  Well, that won't work.  The problem seems
>>to be that 'my whole attention' as the subject can't actually perform the
>>action of 'fixing'; 'my whole attention' is actually the thing that is being
>>fixed and therefore is the object.
>>
>>I finally decided that this sentence's recalcitrance was itself evidence that
>>'my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her fingers' is actually a
>>reduced version of ''my whole attention was fixed upon the motion of her finge
>>rs (by me),' the active version being 'I fixed my whole attention upon the
>>motion of her fingers.'
>>
>>So I have two questions.
>>
>>1.  Do you agree that 'my whole attention fixed upon the motion of her
>>fingers' is actually a nonfinite clause?  Might there be an acceptable finite
>>reading of this?
>>
>>2.  How would you explain this to a group of students who are studying to be
>>teachers and who are none too comfortable with the concepts finiteness and
>>non-finiteness?  I've already rejected "Because I said so."
>>
>>I feel compelled to add that I believe that the ability to determine whether
>>a verb is finite or not in a given clause is going to be useful to these
>>students in their future roles as English and language arts teachers.  I'm
>>not just doing this to torture them --or myself.
>>
>>Janet Castilleja
>
>
>William J. McCleary
>3247 Bronson Hill Road
>Livonia, NY 14487
>716-346-6859