I'm having an argument with a friend about the role of predicative adjuncts in front position and whether they modify the reason behind the action in the main clause.
Examples: "Tired and sleepy, she ate a banana" and "Upset, the children had daubed paint on the walls."
From what I was able to gather from The Cambridge Grammar and various other sources, the adjunct in the first example makes the sentence entail that she had been tired and sleepy, and the second that the children had been upset. Predicatives supplement subjects and objects. I think that's pretty much all there is to it. My friend argues that these adjuncts actually give the explicit reason for the actions the subjects perform, as in she ate a banana because she was tired and sleepy, not that she was tired and sleepy and/when she ate a banana.
Who is right in this case? Are we both wrong? Thanks!