I'm not sure of how you used participle clauses here. I'm an international student so therefore I can't say 100% surely that is incorrect but I'll try to explain how i see it:
Quote:
No participle construction: She watched TV. She forgot everything.
With participle construction: Watching TV, she forgot everything around her.
In this example, note that the 2 sentences are not
exactly the same.
She watched TV. She forgot everything. - you can interpret this as a sequence "first she watched tv, then she forgot everything". What is clear at least is that there's not
necessarily a relation between the two clauses .
In the second sentence it is obvious that it was WHILE she was watching TV that she forgot everything.
Look that in the Stella Adler's example, when you remove the participle clause and substitute it with another sentence, you are changing the original meaning, I could say:
Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater. She trained several artists in order to get to the top.
While the original sentence says:
Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, because she trained several artists....
In the link I provided, indeed it says that participle clauses are used to reduce a sentence but not as you did here merging two sentences,
consider the example:
Quote:
Having taken the wrong train, I found myself in Bath, not Bristol.
Because I had taken the wrong train, I found myself in Bath, not Bristol.
Well at this point I'm not even sure what was the original question or whatever,
i hope it is somehow useful,
see you in next round