Participle Clause vs Relative Clause

Question

Hi there,

I just finished the OG Diagnostic Test on SC. Now, I have a question regarding question 49:

The answer expaination basically says that
1) a relative clause modifies the noun or pronoun it refers to.
2) a participle clause modifies the whole clause it refers to.

Is that correct? I'm asking because there are many occasions in which one can just substitute a relative clause with a participle clause. To stick with question 49, this would look like this:

1) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater,  who trained  several  
2) Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater,  training  several

So is it correct that in the first example, who only refers to theater (which of course would be wrong)? I always thought participle and relative clauses are pretty similar in the way they modify other parts of speech.

Thanks for your help!
Steve

saruba · Answer

I think that MGMAT SC says that  who  after  theater  is not necessarily incorrect but yes confusing, since you have  Stella Adler ,  influential artists  and  American theater  as possible referers.

mikeCoolBoy · Answer

IMO

1) Stella Adler was one of the most  influential artists  in the American theater,  who trained  several

In this sentence who modifies influential artists. It is true that normally, who modifies the noun that precedes it, but because that noun theater is in a prepositional phrase and because who can only modify people in this case who modifies influential artists.

This is an official question with similar structure

Unlike many  women settlers  in the nineteenth-century American West, whose  craftwork

If the pronoun that you have can refer to the preceding noun and to the noun that the prepositional phrase modifies, you have to select depending on the context.

"Corrections in the second, third, and fourth printings, however, were made only to the original  set  of plates,  which was  used for reprintings through 1941 and then melted down"

"Among these may be seen some broad bands and broken masses of another set of  plates, which are  each perforated by a pair of pores"

2)  Stella Adler  was one of the most influential artists in the American theater,  training  several

In this case training modifies the previous clause.

enfinity · Answer

Thank you all for your answers. However, I do not understand why the participle clause (training) modifies the clause and the relative pronoun (who trained) modifies something else. I thought that these two approaches are interchangeable, meaning that I can use one or the other to modify the same "thing".

As a case in point, I used a participle construction (meaning) in my previous sentence instead of the relative pronoun (which means). Does the meaning really change?

I hope my explanation is understandable and someone can clear up my confusion

Thx,
Steve

Thx, Steve

enfinity · Answer

Now that I think about it, can we say that:
1) a participle phrase always modifies the subject of the main clause?
2) a relative pronoun never modifies the object of the preceding prepositional phrase (e.g. in the American theater, who trained etc.)?

Also, I came across the term adverbial participle phrase a couple of times on the net (e.g. https://www.yourdictionary.com/community ... /5048/P15/). I found this very confusing since a participle phrase always modifies a verb... this might be out of scope for the GMAT but just out of curiosity, what do you all think about this?

Cheers,
Steve

mikeCoolBoy · Answer

I don't understand what you mean here. In the example I wrote

"Among these may be seen some broad bands and broken masses of another set of  plates, which  are each perforated by a pair of pores"

which refers to plates so is possible to refer to a noun of the preceding prepositional phrase.

enfinity · Answer

Mike,

thanks man! so you were able to answer my second question. So what about this one here:

Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several

You wrote earlier that in this example, training modifies the previous clause and you highlighted Stella Adler, who is the subject of that clause.
So the other question that I asked was this:  Does a participle phrase always modifies the subject of the preceding clause?  In the Stella Adler example, it does.

saruba · Answer

Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater,   what gave her the opportunity   to train several

That's the way I understand that sentence. Actually I think that participle clauses doesn't "modify" the subject, rather the subject also functions as the subject of the clause (who trained? Stella Adler).

I'll leave you the link for if you want more info  link 
(if you googled about this you have probably been there).

enfinity · Answer

Thanks saruba! Good input! SC drives me nuts so bear with me

I just try to understand everything there is on this naughty subject (or at least as much as possible) so that I can beat every single SC question... OK, here the sentence again: Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several artists And here some thoughts on participle phrases--> the only reason we use participle clauses is to reduce a sentence: For example: if two sentences have the same subject, we can reduce one part to a participle clause: No participle construction: She watched TV. She forgot everything. With participle construction: Watching TV, she forgot everything around her. Now, bringing it all together: Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater. She trained several artists . When I reduce the second sentences by using a participle construction, I get Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several artists BTW: of course, participle constructions can be used for a number of things not just reducing one sentence that shares the same subject with another sentence (such as *not like

* relative clauses)

saruba · Answer

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:

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:
 
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

enfinity · Answer

Good post! We're getting closer!

My point is that you're using participle clauses when you refer to the same subject:

Take this for instance:
She watched TV and forgot everything.

She is still the subject and "Watching TV, she forgot everything around her." would still be the participle version of this, right?

I can see your point though. Participle clauses are often used to reduce adverbial clauses (although I read many times on the internet that participle clauses are NEVER used in an adverbial sense, meaning that they always have to modify a noun, pronoun or noun phrase)

As far as the Stella Adler sentence is concerned. I don't think I changed the meaning at all:

Original sentence: Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, training several artists [...]
My modification: Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater. She trained several artists [...].

Same meaning, isn't it?

As a reminder:
Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained [...] was the cause of all this confusion. Here, who modifies artists instead of Stella Adler. The question was: Why does the reduces version (that is the participle phrase with training) suddenly modify the right thing (that is Stella). First I thought, the participle clause simply reduces the relative sentence (who trained --> training). My train of thought here was: Why does a mere reduction of a relative clause to a participle phrase change the thing being modified However, I think the explanation with the two sentences referring to the same subject (Stella) explains this problem.

Oh, and BTW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Adler
That's who we're talking about the whole time :D

mikeCoolBoy · Answer

I think is that the participle is not a "reduced" version, it just changes the interpretation.

Consider the following

# Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of  experiments investigating  the effects that changes
#  Electric Company  was the scene of an intensive series of experiments,  investigating  the effects that changes

In the first example the participle modifies experiments because you don't have a comma between experiments and investigating. 
In the second example the participle modifies the preceding clause.

I think that the relative sentence does not work this way. A relative sentence modifies the noun that precedes it.

If you want who to "clearly" modify Stella you should put the relative clause close to what it modifies.

Stella Adler,who trained ..., was one of the most influential artists in the American theater

enfinity · Answer

You're right mike. Here is the simple explaination provided in MGMAT SC, pg. 91:

Present Participle  WITH COMMAS  always refers to the verb and the verb's subject in the preceding clause.
Present Participle  WITHOUT COMMAS  always refer to the noun preceding the participle.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Participle Clause vs Relative Clause

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards