Look at these examples to see how participle clauses are used.
Looked after carefully, these boots will last for many years.
Not wanting to hurt his feelings, I avoided the question.
Having lived through difficult times together, they were very close friends.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
Grammar explanation
Participle clauses enable us to say information in a more economical way. They are formed using present participles (going, reading, seeing, walking, etc.), past participles (gone, read, seen, walked, etc.) or perfect participles (having gone, having read, having seen, having walked, etc.).
We can use participle clauses when the participle and the verb in the main clause have the same subject. For example,
Waiting for Ellie, I made some tea. (While I was waiting for Ellie, I made some tea.)
Participle clauses do not have a specific tense. The tense is indicated by the verb in the main clause.
Participle clauses are mainly used in written texts, particularly in a literary, academic or journalistic style.
Present participle clauses
Here are some common ways we use present participle clauses. Note that present participles have a similar meaning to active verbs.
- To give the result of an action
The bomb exploded, destroying the building. - To give the reason for an action
Knowing she loved reading, Richard bought her a book. - To talk about an action that happened at the same time as another action
Standing in the queue, I realised I didn't have any money. - To add information about the subject of the main clause
Starting in the new year, the new policy bans cars in the city centre.
Past participle clauses
Here are some common ways that we use past participle clauses. Note that past participles normally have a passive meaning.
- With a similar meaning to an if condition
Used in this way, participles can make your writing more concise. (If you use participles in this way, … ) - To give the reason for an action
Worried by the news, she called the hospital. - To add information about the subject of the main clause
Filled with pride, he walked towards the stage.
Perfect participle clauses
Perfect participle clauses show that the action they describe was finished before the action in the main clause. Perfect participles can be structured to make an active or passive meaning.
Having got dressed, he slowly went downstairs.
Having finished their training, they will be fully qualified doctors.
Having been made redundant, she started looking for a new job.
Participle clauses after conjunctions and prepositions
It is also common for participle clauses, especially with -ing, to follow conjunctions and prepositions such as before, after, instead of, on, since, when, while and in spite of.
Before cooking, you should wash your hands.
Instead of complaining about it, they should try doing something positive.
On arriving at the hotel, he went to get changed.
While packing her things, she thought about the last two years.
In spite of having read the instructions twice, I still couldn’t understand how to use it.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
When I want to use the participle clause to give a reason, do I ALWAYS need to write the participle at the beginning of the sentence?
Thank you
Hi Amaliiiii,
No, not always! You can put the main clause first and the participle clause afterwards too.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Hi teachers, I have a few questions. I hope you can clear things out for me. Thank you so much!
1. Can I use present participle in place of past participle?
Used in this way, participles can make your writing more concise. -> Being used in this way, ...
Worried by the news, she called the hospital. -> being worried by the news, ...
Filled with pride, he walked towards the stage. -> Being filled with pride, ...
2. How can I use negative with past participle?
Is 'Not brought up by his family, he became a bad man.' or 'Not being brought up, ...' is correct? or are both correct?
Thank you again!
Hi Uyen123,
I'll try to help.
1. Yes, you can do this. But the "be" present participle tends to be used with things that are temporary rather than permanent. It works fine with "Being worried by the news, ..." and "Being filled with pride, ...", as these are momentary feelings. It would be unusual, though, to say "Being used in this way, ..." since that sentence is about a general idea which we understand to be true not only in this moment, but more widely and universally.
2. It's acceptable to say "not" + past participle, but I think it's more common to use "not" with "being" and then the past participle.
Another option is to rephrase the sentence to include the negative in a different way, e.g. Unworried by the news, ... or Brought up outside of his family, he became ... . I think these versions may be a bit easier and clearer to understand than "not" + past participle.
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Hi Johnathan, your explanation is really helpful. I have one more question.
Can I rewrite the following sentence like this?
He is a vegetarian. That's why he stays away from any meat products.
-> A vegetarian, he stays away from any meat products.
Do I have to put 'being' at the beginning of the second sentence? If not, would this still be classified as participle clause?
Hi Uyen123,
I'm glad it was helpful!
Yes, you can write it like that. However, it would be more common to do this in writing than in speaking, and it sounds more formal than the version with "being" (which is more neutral in style).
Without "being", no, it's not a participle clause. It's called an appositive noun phrase.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
hello dear teachers,
1. a widow is a woman whose husband is dead.
2. a widow is a woman who her husband is dead.
could you please tell me why the second one is not correct.
Best regards,
Hello Mohsen.k77,
The first sentence is OK because 'whose' is an adjective which describes a noun ('husband').
If you write the sentence with 'who' then you are changing the structure and creating a relative clause. In the relative clause 'who' needs to be the subject or the object of a verb. In your second sentence it is neither. You could say: A widow is a woman who has lost her husband. In this sentence 'who' is the subject of the verb 'is'.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
"On seeing her former owner, the dog ran across the room to greet him". What if I removed "on"? Would it change the meaning of the sentence?
"On arriving at the hotel, he went to get changed". Does it mean the same as "Having arrived at the hotel, he went to get changed"?
Thank you very much.
Hello Pritrushenko
The clauses beginning with 'on' have the same meaning as 'when' clauses (e.g. 'When she saw her former owner').
The clauses without 'on' are less specific. They can mean the same thing as the clauses with 'on', but can also, for example, show a more causal relationship, e.g. the dog ran across the room because she saw her former owner.
In the end, much of the time, the two versions of the sentences can mean the same thing. But it is possible for a different relationship between the clauses in each to be construed.
Best wishes,
Kirk
LearnEnglish team