The views concerning “dangling participles” of grammarians, usage experts and authors of books on technical writing are reviewed and compared. Although many unattached clauses are clearly unacceptable, some are less objectionable and still others are acceptable practice. Absolute constructions and other clause-relational participial, infinitival and verbless clauses need no attachment to a proximate noun or noun phrase, and logical clauses that are not attached to a noun are shown as normal, acceptable use. Even clearly adjectival clauses are often unattached when followed by the passive voice, intransitives and several other grammatical structures; clauses between the subject and verb and at the end of the sentence are also often not attached to the immediately preceding noun. Cultural (perhaps also gender) differences between humanistic teachers and task-oriented engineers are noted as possible causes of different viewpoints regarding the use of unattached participles, and greater acceptance of the many acceptable forms of unattached clauses is argued.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BabingtonD. and LePanD., The Broadview Guide to Writing, Broadview Press, Peterborough, Ontario, 1991.
2.
PickettN. A. and LasterA. A., Technical English: Writing, Reading, Speaking, Harper and Row, New York, 1998.
3.
JordanM. P., To-Infinitive Groups as Clauses and Post Modifiers in English, in The 21st LACUS Forum, PowellM. J. (ed.), LACUS, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp. 258–268, 1994.
4.
ShermanT. A., Modern Technical Writing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966.
5.
QuirkR.GreenbaumS.LeechG., and SvartvikJ., A Grammar of Contemporary English, Longman, London, 1972, 1985.
6.
WallisJ. (1653), John Wallis's Grammar of the English Language, Trans. of 6 ed. (1765), KempJ. A. (ed.), Longman, London, 1765.
7.
SweetH. (1891), A New English Grammar, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1900.
8.
OnionsC. T. (1903), An Advanced English Syntax, published as Modern English Syntax, Routledge and Kegan, London, 1971.
9.
JespersenO., Essentials of English Grammar, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1993.
10.
CurmeG. E., Parts of Speech and Accidence, Heath, Boston, 1935.
11.
ScheurweghsG., Present-Day English Syntax, Longman, London, 1959.
12.
FowlerH. W. (1926), A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2ed., GowersE.Sir (ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1968.
13.
NicholsonM., A Dictionary of American-English Usage, Based on Fowler's Modern English Usage, Oxford University Press, 1957.
14.
PartridgeE., Usage and Abusage: A Guide to Good English, Penguin and Hamish Hamilton, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1942.
15.
GowersE.Sir, Plain Words, in The Complete Plain Words, FraserB. D. (ed.), Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1948.
16.
EvansE. and EvansC., A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage, Random House, New York, 1957.
17.
FollettW., Modern American Usage, Hill and Wang, New York, 1966.
18.
MillsG. H. and WalterJ. A., Technical Writing, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1970.
19.
TurnerR. P., Grammer Review for Technical Writers, Rinehart, San Francisco, 1964.
20.
MorrisJ. E., Principles of Scientific and Technical Writing, McGraw Hill, New York, 1996.
21.
DamerstW. A., Clear Technical Reports, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1972.
22.
LeggettG.MeadC. D., and CharvatW., Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers (6th Edition), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1974.
23.
CorderJ. W., Handbook of Current English (5th Edition), Scott Foresman, Glenview, Illinois, 1975.
24.
BinghamE. G., Pocketbook for Technical and Professional Writers, Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 1982.
25.
WeismanH. M., Basic Report Writing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1996.
EisenbergA., Effective Technical Communication (2nd Edition), McGraw Hill, New York, 1982.
28.
BakerS., The Practical Stylist, Harper and Row, New York, 1986.
29.
JordanM. P., The Language of Technical Communication, Quarry Press, Kingston, Ontario, 1996.
30.
BrusawC. T.AlredG., and OliuW. E., Handbook of Technical Writing, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1976.
31.
ChristophersenP., The Articles: A Study of Their Theory and Use in English, Muskaard, Copenhagen, 1939.
32.
HawkinsJ. A., Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study of Reference and Grammaticality Predictions, Croom-Helm, London, 1978.
33.
JordanM. P., An Integrated Three-Pronged Analysis of a Fund-Raising Letter, in Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses, MannW. C. and ThompsonS. A. (eds.), Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 171–226, 1992.
34.
GriceH. P., Logic and Conversation, in Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ColeP. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58, 1975.
35.
RoundyN. with MairD., Strategies for Technical Communication, Little Brown, Boston, 1985.
36.
RodmanL., Anticipatory It in Scientific Discourse, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21: 1, pp. 17–27, 1991.
37.
RodmanL., The Active Voice in Scientific Articles: Frequency and Discourse Functions, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 24: 3, pp. 309–331, 1994.
38.
RodmanL., Should We Proscribe Existential ‘There’?Technostyle, 13: 1, pp. 61–75, 1996.
39.
RodmanL., The Pragmatics of Non-Adverbial Existential There Clauses in Scientific Articles, in The 23rd LACUS Forum, MelbyA. K. (ed.), LACUS, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp. 657–663, 1996.
40.
SnowC. P., Two Cultures: And a Second Look (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press, 1964.
41.
LayM. M., The Androgynous Collaborator: The Impact of Gender Studies on Collaboration, in New Visions of Collaborative Writing, PortsmouthForman J. (ed.), pp. 82–104, Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, New Hampshire, pp. 82–104, 1992.
42.
LayM. M., The Value of Gender Studies to Professional Communication Research, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8: 1, pp. 58–90, 1994.
43.
LyonsN., Two Perspectives: On Self, Relationships and Morality, Harvard Educational Review, 53: 2, pp. 125–145, 1983.
44.
JordanM. P., Beyond Impressionism: Evaluation Causal Connections, in Technical Writing: Theory and Practice, FearingB. E. and SparrowW. K. (eds.), Modern Languages Association, New York, pp. 102–116, 1989.
45.
WinterE. O. O., A Clause-Relational Approach to English Texts: A Study of Some Predictive Lexical Items in Written Discourse, Instructional Science, Special Issue, 6, pp. 1–73, 1997.
46.
JordanM. P., Pragmatic, Stylistic and Grammatical Limitations on Choice: A Study of Cause-Effect Signalling in English, in Linguistic Choice Across Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English, Sánchez-MacarroA. and CarterR. (eds.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 65–86, 1998.
47.
RedishJ. C. and RosenS., Can Guidelines Help Writers? in Plain Language Principles and Practice, SteinbergE. (ed.), Wayne State University, Detroit, pp. 83–92, 1991.
48.
IngramS., Gender and Modes of Collaboration in Engineering: Technical Communication as a Social Process, Technostyle, 14: 1, pp. 21–40, 1998.
49.
HuckinT. N.CurtinE. H., and GrahamD., Perspective Linguistics and Plain Language: The Case of ‘Whiz-Deletions,’Visible Language, 20, pp. 174–187, Spring 1986.
50.
SteinbergE. R., A Pox on Pithy Prescriptions, College Communication and Composition, 37, pp. 96–100, February 1986.
51.
HuckinT. N., Stylistic Prescriptivism vs. Expert Practice, Technostyle, 11: 2, pp. 1–17, 1993.
52.
JordanMichael P., The Power of Negation in English: Text, Context and Relevance, Journal of Pragmatics, 29, pp. 705–762, 1998.
53.
JordanMichael P., Pragmatic, Stylistic and Grammatical Limitations on Choice: A Study of Cause-Effect Signaling in English, in Linguistic Choice Across Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English, Sánchez-MacarroA. and CarterR. (eds.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 65–86, 1998.
54.
JordanMichael P., The Enabler-Enablement Relations in English, in The 24th LACUS Forum, EmbletonS. (ed.), The Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States, Chapel Hills, North Carolina, pp. 290–303, 1998.
55.
JordanMichael P., Towards a Linguistic Definition of Basic Functional Literacy in Technical English, Technostyle, 14: 1, pp. 41–76, 1998.
56.
JordanMichael P., Subtle Signaling of Logical Relations in News Reporting, in The 23rd LACUS Forum, MelbyA. K. (ed.), The Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp. 325–340, 1997.
57.
JordanMichael P., The Language of Technical Communication, Quarry Press, Kingston, Canada, 1996.
