Editing Dangling modifier (section)

== Dangling-modifier clauses ==
As an [[Adjunct (grammar)|adjunct]], a [[Modifier (grammar)|modifier]] clause is normally at the beginning or the end of a sentence and usually attached to the subject of the main clause. However, when the subject is missing or the clause attaches itself to another object in a sentence, the clause is seemingly "hanging" on nothing or on an inappropriate noun. It thus "dangles", as in these sentences:
{{quote|text=''Ambiguous'': Walking down Main Street (''clause''), the trees were beautiful (''object'').  (''Subject is unclear / implicit'')
''Unambiguous'': Walking down Main Street (''clause''), I (''subject'') admired the beautiful trees (''object'').

''Ambiguous'': Reaching the station, the sun came out. (''Subject is unclear - who reached the station?'')
''Unambiguous'': As Priscilla reached the station, the sun came out.
|multiline=yes }}

In the first sentence, the adjunct clause may at first appear to modify "the trees", the subject of the sentence. However, it actually modifies the speaker of the sentence, who is not explicitly mentioned. In the second sentence, the adjunct may at first appear to modify "the sun", the subject of the sentence. Presumably, there is another, human subject who did reach the station as the sun was coming out, but this subject is not mentioned in the text. In both cases, whether the intended meaning is obscured or not may depend on context - if the previous sentences clearly established a subject, then it may be obvious who was walking down Main Street or reaching the station. But if left alone, they may be unclear if the reader takes the subject as an unknown observer; or misleading if a reader somehow believed the trees were walking down the street or the sun traveled to the station.

Many style guides of the 20th century consider dangling participles ungrammatical and incorrect. Strunk and White's ''[[The Elements of Style]]'' states that "A participle phrase at the beginning of a sentence must refer to the grammatical subject".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Strunk |first1=William |author-link1=William Strunk Jr. |last2=White |first2=E.B. |author-link2=E. B. White |title=The Elements of Style |year=1962 |orig-date=1959 |publisher=The Macmillan Company |location=Boston |lccn=59-9950 |page=8 |url=https://archive.org/details/elementsofstyle0000unse_j8x6/page/8/mode/2up}}</ref> The 1966 book ''Modern American Usage: A Guide'', started by [[Wilson Follett]] and finished by others, agrees: "A participle at the head of a sentence automatically affixes itself to the subject of the following verb – in effect a requirement that the writer either make his [grammatical] subject consistent with the participle or discard the participle for some other construction".<ref name="follett" /> However, this prohibition has been questioned; more [[descriptivist]] authors consider that a dangling participle is only problematic when there is actual ambiguity. One of Follett's examples is "Leaping to the saddle, his horse bolted",<ref name="follett">Wilson Follett, ''Modern American Usage: A Guide'' (New York: Hill and Wang, 1966), 117.</ref> but a reader is unlikely to be genuinely confused and think that the horse was leaping into a saddle rather than an implicit rider; ''[[The Economist]]'' questioned whether the "clumsy examples" of the style guides proved much.<Ref name="economist-donaldson" /> Many respected and successful writers have used dangling participles without confusion; one example is [[Virginia Woolf]] whose work includes many such phrases, such as "Lying awake, the floor creaked" (in ''[[Mrs Dalloway]]'') or "Sitting up late at night it seems strange not to have more control" (in ''[[The Waves]]'').<Ref name="economist-donaldson">{{cite magazine |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=The real problem with dangling participles |url=https://www.economist.com/culture/2022/05/07/the-real-problem-with-dangling-participles |magazine=[[The Economist]] |publisher= |date=May 7, 2022 |access-date=May 12, 2022}}<br/>The article cites: {{cite thesis |last=Donaldson |first=James |date=July 22, 2021 |title=Control in free adjuncts: The 'dangling modifier' in English |type=PhD |chapter= |publisher=The University of Edinburgh |docket= |doi=10.7488/era/1055 |access-date=}}</ref> Shakespeare's ''[[Richard II]]'' includes a dangling modifier as well.<ref group=note><poem>As in a theatre, the eyes of men,
After a well-graced actor leaves the stage,
Are idly bent on him that enters next,
Thinking his prattle to be tedious.</poem>
Richard II, Act 5, Scene 2.  (The men themselves think the newcomer is tedious, not the eyes.)</ref>

===Absolute constructions===
Dangling participles are similar to clauses in [[absolute construction]]s, but absolute constructions are considered uncontroversial and grammatical. The difference is that a participle phrase in an absolute construction is not semantically attached to any single element in the sentence.<ref name="AHBEU">{{cite book |title=The American Heritage Book of English Usage: A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English |year=1996 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |isbn=0-395-76785-7 |page=[https://archive.org/details/americanheritage00edi_4cp/page/1 1] |url=https://archive.org/details/americanheritage00edi_4cp/page/1 }}</ref> A participle phrase is intended to modify a particular noun or pronoun, but in a dangling participle, it is instead erroneously attached to a different noun or to nothing; whereas in an absolute clause, is not intended to modify any noun at all, and thus modifying nothing is the intended use. An example of an absolute construction is:
<blockquote>
The weather being beautiful, we plan to go to the beach today.
</blockquote>