In these examples, however, we have integrated modifiers (traditionally 
called restrictive modifiers). The attachment rule applies to 
supplemental (non-restrictive) modifiers.

Since integrated modifiers are an essential part of the phrase, there's 
no real doubt about the semantic relationship.

Notice if you add a comma after "car" in both 5 and 6 the sentences seem 
to say that I liked the car (or the girl) while I was sitting on the 
showroom floor.

Karl

John Crow wrote:
> I tried applying the "attachment rule" to some other sentences and got in
> trouble quickly:
> 
>                 5.  I really liked the blue sports car sitting on the
> showroom floor.
> 
> "sitting on the showroom floor" is non-finite and subjectless, yet it does
> not refer to the subject of the matrix clause ("I").  I though maybe the
> prepositional phrase in #3 was the issue, but:
> 
>                6.  I really liked the girl in the blue sports car sitting on
> the showroom floor.
> 
> In this one, "I", "girl", or "car" could be "sitting on the showroom
> floor."  I would call the above sentence awkward, but I would not call it
> ungrammatical.  And, again, clearly "I" am not the entity that is doing the
> sitting.
> 
> I still don't understand, therefore, why #3 is wrong.  I know it is, but the
> same "attachment rule" that explains it so nicely doesn't cover #5 or
> 6--unless I am misinterpreting the rule?
> 
> John
> 
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Quirk et alia call the operational principle the "attachment rule."
>>
>> Nonfinite clauses without overt subjects are by default assumed to refer to
>> the subject of the matrix clause.
>>
>> While I can sort of accept #2 as referring to the master shivering, it's
>> not the normal reading, and I would consider that interpretation rather
>> forced and awkward. #3 brings that out clearly, given the inherent
>> unlikelihood of a poodle reading (outside a work of fantasy).
>>
>> #4 can refer to the master because it's neither non-finite nor subjectless.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> John Crow wrote:
>>
>>> Look at the following sentences:
>>>
>>>   1. The poodle stood behind the tree, shivering in the cold wind.
>>>   2. The poodle stood behind its master, shivering in the cold wind.
>>>   3. *The poodle stood behind its master, reading a book.
>>>   4. The poodle stood behind its master, who was reading a book.
>>>
>>> In #1, the shiverer is obvious:  trees cannot perform such an action.
>>>
>>> In #2, however, both the poodle and its master could shiver.  Yet my
>>> intuition tells me that the poodle is the one who is shivering.  For some
>>> reason, the master in this sentence cannot be the actor.
>>>
>>> If I create a sentence where the master must be the actor (#3), it sounds
>>> stupid to me.
>>>
>>> If I put back in the optional(?) relative clause elements (#4), then it is
>>> fine.
>>>
>>> What's going on here?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>> 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/
>>
> 
> 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/
> 

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/