Participle phrase or participle clause? For my students please?

Question

I've looked at other answers, but am still confused - so please don't shoot me down (as tends to happen here) - but rather help if you can for the sake of my little learners. I have to teach a class on this in two days and I suspect that the text provided for me is wrong: > Walking to school, I spotted a car driving erratically toward me. I would say that "Walking to school" is a participle phrase as it has no subject, but my text says that it is a participle clause. How can it be a clause when there is no subject at that beginning end of the sentence? I've read of implied subjects - i.e. the person walking and the person spotting are one and the same here. Does that count? Again, sorry if this is an obvious question to some, but you folks here know heaps and I want to give my little guys accurate info, which is truly hard when it comes to clauses!

Answer 1

A clause doesn't necessarily have to have a subject. The difference between a participle phrase and a participle clause is that a participle phrase functions as an adjective, and a participle clause functions as an adverb, giving information about condition, result, reason or time. A participle clause also has the same subject as the main clause. So in your sentence--

Walking to school, I spotted a car driving erratically toward me.

"Walking to school" describes the conditions under which you noticed the car. It modifies "spotted."

However--

"Soaring above the river, the eagle searched for a fish to eat."

"Soaring above the river" modifies "eagle," so it is functioning as an adjective; therefore, it is a participle phrase.

Hope that helps!