"Turning into the parking lot = Adverbial present-participle phrase" --> but is it modifying the girl, or her seeing that lines were already forming? Isn't the girl the one turning into the parking lot? So isn't it adjectival, because it's describing the girl?
Modification is a relative concept that applies to the domain of grammar only.
Let's consider a situation in which a girl (call her Ruth), can be seen turning into a parking lot.
You can say this.
- The girl is turning into the parking lot.
The action of turning in this sentence is not considered to be a modifier of the noun "girl".
Someone else might want to speak about the same situation but as seen from the background of a more complex situation that the speaker responsible for the preceding phrase did not consider; there are in fact other girls on the road, and they are not all turning into the parking lot. Then that person might say this.
- The girl turning into the parking lot is Ruth.
In this new sentence the action of turning is considered to be a modifier of the noun "girl"; yet, this is the girl mentioned in the first sentence, doing the same thing, at the same time; she and her action are only considered from different points of view. One can see then that modification is not an intrinsic attribute of the referent but instead an attribute of the noun relative to the circumstances that the sentence is made to situate the referent into.
From the instant that this is accepted, there is no case for relying on the actions per se, and only the syntax (principally) and also sometimes the semantics will tell whether modification is involved or not; this is so because the syntax is chosen so as to match the circumstances, the reference frame for the action, so to speak.
(no reference for the above, personal deductions from user LPH)
2.
Turning into the parking lot, the girl could see that lines were already forming.
The syntax, here, is rather clear. The head of the phrase is "girl" and the determiner is "the"; if there was premodification by means of an -ing participle this participle would have to be found after the determiner; moreover, -ing participles in premodification cannot have a prepositional complement; premodification by means of an adverb is posssible, though. Also, as an essential feature of premodification by -ing participles, the action that the verbal form embodies must show some degree of permanence or be characteristic.
(CoGEL § 17.98) The possibility of modification by a present participle depends on the potentiality of the participle to indicate a permanent or characteristic feature.
The often missing component was costly. (permanent feature)
The turning girl could see the lines. (Turning into the parking lot can't take too long.)
The crying in the parking lot girl could see the lines. (No prepositional complement allowed)
The girl crying in the parking lot could see the lines. (correct)
The crying girl could see the lines. (also correct but less informative)
It came to pass that, settling permanently in Paris he, too, forgot the child, especially when the Revolution of February broke out, making an impression on his mind that he remembered all the rest of his life.
The first -ing participle is not near a noun; the pronoun "he" is the closest part of speech, but the possibility of premodification of personal pronouns is inexistent, so we are dealing with a nonfinite clause. The second - ing participle has an object, and so it cannot have a function of premodification; anyway, there is nothing to premodify. Also, there is obviously no noun that can be postmodified.
(CoGEL § 5.1) Such pronouns can 'deputize'
for noun phrases and hence cannot normally occur with determiners such as
the definite article, premodification, or (normally) postmodification:
- *the blonde she ?she in blue jeans
For example, I thought the first participle phrase would be "settling permanently in Paris" and not "settling"; I also thought the second participle phrase would be "making an impression on his mind that" and not "making an impression".
This is correct as far as the first phrase goes. Syntax and semantics are the key. "Permanently" (rather redundant) and "in Paris" (place) are usual adverbials following "settle", and as there is no comma after "settle" there is no doubt that these two adverbials belong to the phrase. The second phrase reaches to the end of the sentence: "making an impression on his mind that he remembered all the rest of his life".
5.
Turning into the parking lot, the girl could see that lines were already forming.
When turning into the parking lot, the girl…. The clause is a subjectless supplementive clause with the function of time adverbial (time adjunct, because it denotes circumstances of the situation in the matrix clause). (There is no difficulty distinguishing those because "time disjunct" is meaningless, such disjuncts do not exist except as the restricted category of frequency disjuncts (generally speaking, normally speaking). user LPH)
(CoGEL § 15.20) Adjuncts and disjuncts
Adjuncts and disjuncts tend to differ semantically in that adjuncts denote
circumstances of the situation in the matrix clause, whereas disjuncts
comment on the style or form of what is said in the matrix clause (style
disjuncts) or on its content (content or attitudinal disjuncts). The primary
difference is that they differ syntactically in that disjuncts are peripheral to the clause to which they are attached.
It came to pass that, settling permanently in Paris he, too, forgot the child, especially when the Revolution of February broke out, making an impression on his mind that he remembered all the rest of his life.
… after settling …. The clause is a subjectless supplementive clause with the function of time adverbial (time adjunct, because it denotes circumstances of the situation in the matrix clause ("he, too, forgot the child")).
7.
It came to pass that, settling permanently in Paris he, too, forgot the child, especially when the Revolution of February broke out, making an impression on his mind that he remembered all the rest of his life.
For this last clause, although it is easy to parse, the general case that it exemplifies is a source of problems.
(CoGEL § 15.61) Subjectless supplementive clauses
The formal characteristics of subjectless supplementive clauses are:
(a) They are participle or verbless clauses.
(b) Their most typical positions in the superordinate clause are initial, final, and immediately after their antecedent, ie the noun phrase in the
superordinate clause which is identical with their implied subject.
The position immediately after the antecedent poses the most difficulties
for analysis. When subjectless supplementive clauses occur in that position,
they may be indistinguishable from postmodifying participle clauses or (in
the case of verbless clauses) from noun phrases in apposition. Thus the two
constructions may merge in that it is impossible (and semantically
unimportant) to decide whether the participle clause in [1] is to be regarded
as functionally equivalent to the nonrestrictive relative clause in [1a]:
- This substance, discovered almost by accident, has revolutionized
medicine. [1]
- This substance, which was discovered almost by accident, has
revolutionized medicine. [1a]
Alternatively, it may be equivalent to a subjectless supplementive clause:
- Discovered almost by accident, this substance has revolutionized
medicine.
(CoGEL § 15.62) Supplementive clauses in final position
In spite of their resemblance to nonrestrictive relative clauses, supplementive
clauses need not be separated from their matrix clause intonationally when
they occur in final position. The following are therefore alternative renderings of the same sentence, differing only in that [1] has two focuses of information, whereas [2] has only one:
- The manager apPRÒACHED us, SMÌling. [1]
- The manager approached us SMÌling. [2]
One result of the alternative shown in [2] is the possible neutralization of the formal difference between nonfinite clauses functioning as supplementive
clauses and those functioning as complementation of the verb. Thus [3] is
ambiguous :
- I saw Pam going home. [3]
On one interpretation (that of the supplementive clause), I is the implied
subject of going home, whereas on the other (that of verb complementation),
Pam is the overt subject.
Another result of the lack of intonation is illustrated in [4] and [5]. When
the -ing participle immediately follows certain finite verbs with existential
meaning, the latter seem close to being aspectual catenatives […]:
- Frank sat reading the newspaper. [4]
- Edith came running towards us. [5]
Further, a sentence such as [6] is ambiguous in more than one way:
- I caught the boy waiting for my daughter. [6]
In addition to the two possible structures of [3], this may be interpreted as
having a third structure, in which the nonfinite clause is a postmodifying
clause :
- 'I caught the boy while I was waiting for my daughter.' [supplementive
clause]
- 'I caught the boy in the act of waiting for my daughter.' [verb
complementation]
- 'I caught the boy who was waiting for my daughter.' [postmodification]
It can be seen from the examples in this preceding paragraph that semantics is sometimes all that can be depended on as the last resort.
"making an impression … life" is a subjectless supplementive -ing clause functioning as a sentence adverbial. It is a sentence adverbial because it relates to the remainder of the clause ("the Revolution of February broke out") rather than to the verb only ("broke out").This adjunct is of the type called "contingency adjunct"; the particular kind of contingency can be called "result" or "consequence".
(CoGEL § 8.36) Sentence adjuncts
The most obvious way in which sentence adjuncts mark themselves off from
predication adjuncts is by their relative freedom to occur at I [initial position] as well as E [end]. In this way they demonstrate what we can intuitively feel: that they relate to the sentence as a whole rather than solely or predominantly to the V and post-V elements. Thus on the cheek and on the platform both possess the adjunct characteristics […]:
- She kissed her mother on the cheek. [1]
- She kissed her mother on the platform. [2]
- It came to pass that, settling permanently in Paris he, too, forgot the child, especially when, making an impression on his mind that he remembered all the rest of his life, the Revolution of February broke out. (Changing the place of the adverbial (of the particular sort called "sentence adjunct") from E to I changes nothing to the meaning. The style, however, might not be the preferred one.)
The claim that the clause is a sentence adjunct seems inescapable as it can be replaced by a sentential relative clause without change in the meaning.
It came to pass that, settling permanently in Paris he, too, forgot the child, especially when the Revolution of February broke out, which made an impression on his mind that he remembered all the rest of his life.
