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/