Participle usage...

Question

Consider this following sentence:Increasing atmospheric temperature is the reason for green house effect.Now consider this second sentence:In the 18th century, increasing atmospheric temperature led to green house effect.The first sentence clearly means that atmospheric temperatures are increasing and this phenomenon is the reason for green house effect.However, second sentence is intriguing. If you look at it closely, it seems to suggest (if you read closely) that there was 'someone/something' that was increasing the atmospheric temperature. Can someone explain me why this is so and what grammatical 'rule' is in effect here.Also, to bring clarify, the second sentence can be modified as:In the 18th century, increased atmospheric temperature led to green house effect.The problem that the above construct addresses is that this no longer suggests that  'someone/something' was increasing the atmospheric temperature. However, that 'continuous effect' (of temperature continuously increasing in the 18th century) goes away.Really confused.Thanks.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

Consider this following sentence:

Increasing atmospheric temperature is the reason for the green house effect.

Now consider this second sentence:

In the 18th century, increasing atmospheric temperature led to a green house effect.

The first sentence clearly means that atmospheric temperatures are increasing and this phenomenon is the reason for green house effect. I don't see why this sentence can't also be interpreted in the way you think the second one can.

However, second sentence is intriguing. If you look at it closely, it seems to suggest (if you read closely) that there was 'someone/something' that was increasing the atmospheric temperature. Can someone explain me why this is so and what grammatical 'rule' is in effect here.

For the first interpretation, you are considering 'increasing' as an adjective.YOu could change it into an adjectival clause.

eg Atmospheric temperature (which is increasing) is the reason for the green house effect.

For the second interpretation, you are interpreting 'increasing' as a gerund.

Consider 'Driving cars is the reason for the green house effect'.

Here, 'driving' is clearly a gerund.

Really, the reader has to interpret the meaning based on the context. Usually, this is not difficult.

Also, to bring clarify, the second sentence can be modified as:

In the 18th century, increased atmospheric temperature led to green house effect.

The problem that the above construct addresses is that this no longer suggests that 'someone/something' was increasing the atmospheric temperature. However, that 'continuous effect' (of temperature continuously increasing in the 18th century) goes away.

Best wishes, Clive

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks Clive; I have a follow up question. Suppose we need to pick the 'best' choice between the following constructs:

Increasing atmospheric temperature is the reason for the green house effect.

An Increase in atmospheric temperature is the reason for the green house effect.

Since "increasing" in the first sentence can be either interpreted as participle or gerund (with the meaning of the sentence changing accordingly), in some ways, the first sentence is ambiguous, while the second sentence is clearly depicting the intended meaning.

So, if we had to pick the 'best', second would be better (especially, if we know from the 'context' that the meaning conveyed by the second sentence is indeed the intention of the author).

Thanks.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

I have a follow up question. Suppose we need to pick the 'best' choice between the following constructs:

Increasing atmospheric temperature is the reason for the green house effect.

An Increase in atmospheric temperature is the reason for the green house effect.

Since "increasing" in the first sentence can be either interpreted as participle or gerund (with the meaning of the sentence changing accordingly), in some ways, the first sentence is ambiguous, while the second sentence is clearly depicting the intended meaning.

So, if we had to pick the 'best', second would be better (especially, if we know from the 'context' that the meaning conveyed by the second sentence is indeed the intention of the author).

In real life, one doesn't just consider grammar. One also considers meaning.

If I consider 'increasing atmospheric temperature' as a gerund, I think about questions like these.

Is there in fact some way to deliberately increase atmospheric temerature?

Would anyone set out to do such a thing?

The answers seem to me to be clearly 'No', so I would definitely take the non-gerund interpretation.

Describing the temperature as 'increasing' rather than 'increased' conveys better the idea that the 'process of increasing' is still continuing. 'Increased' does not have this idea of 'still continuing'.

In short, I don't think a native speaker would consider the first sentence ambiguous.

Clive

Anonymous · Answer

Thanks Clive. As you correctly mentioned, in real life questions such as feasibility (of someone increasing the temperature) would resolve the ambiguity.

Actually I am preparing for a test in which one of the questions required me to pick the best of the above two choices. That was the genesis of my doubt.

Regards.

Participle usage...

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬