I confused this sentence "In response to a recent editorial slamming the agency's newest advertising campaign"

I thought

first, there is skip between 'slamming' and 'the agency's newest advertising campaign' in this case, which is "that is" because slamming is noun. but I'm not sure because I didn't know about skip things very well.

second, slamming is verb and "the agency's newest advertising campaign" is object. but if it's correct, there is It should be noun after "in response to"

so I can't catch this sentence's structure.

please give me which is correct or incorrect. and tell me I can skip 'that is' or not. ex. there is an apple (that is) new advertising from apple company.

and there is full passage

In response to a recent editorial slamming the agency's newest advertising campaign, the agency spokesman denounced the piece as stemming from adversarial motives, due to the editorialist's position on the board of the agency's primary competitor.

thank in advance

  • 1
    Please provide the full context of the sentence? As written it's just an incomplete phrase explaining why something else happened.
    – Andrew
    Mar 22 '18 at 18:01
  • 1
    I added full context
    – Sangho Ju
    Mar 22 '18 at 23:01

In your example, "slamming the agency's newest advertising campaign" is (I believe) a participle phrase that acts like an adjective, and modifies the noun "editorial".

Other examples of this kind of participle phrase:

The man running away from the bank after it was robbed was later caught by police.

That tree hanging over the fence needs to be trimmed back.

Also, be aware of the alternate meaning of "to slam"

slam (v): 4. to criticize harshly

Examples using this definition:

The movie critic slammed the director's latest film, saying it was an incomprehensible mess from beginning to end.

Sophie was in tears after her latest art project got slammed by her classmates.

Former employees of the administration often find themselves slammed not only by the President's supporters, but also in personal tweets from the President himself.


The sentence is incomplete. Not because of the missing "that is". Even adding that will not complete the statement.

There is a missing comma right after "slamming".

The sentence provides a reason and the acting body but doesn't throw light on the action taken.

The statement can be like "In response to a recent editorial slamming, the agency's newest advertising campaign [took some measures]"

  • You are correct that the sentence is incomplete, but there should not be any comma after "slamming". There could be a comma between "editorial" and "slamming" but it's not required.
    – Andrew
    Mar 22 '18 at 17:59
  • Sorry, I have to disagree with your analysis. Putting a comma after "slamming" makes it not make any sense. Slamming is almost always transitive: something was slamming something else. If we read "after a recent editorial slamming, ...", we want to say "Slamming what?" It makes much more sense to read this as "After a recent editorial that was slamming the agency's newest advertising campaign, (something else happened)." But it is difficult to be 100% sure because the original poster did not give us the complete sentence.
    – stangdon
    Mar 22 '18 at 18:07
  • Yeah sorry, I was wrong. I thought editorial slamming together meant some kind of criticism directed at the company's recent editorial. I thought this was the cause that affected the company's response. Mar 23 '18 at 4:09
  • That said, it did occur to me later that slamming could be a noun, and therefore editorial was actually an adjective modifying slamming, so you could have been right! But it's definitely the less common way to read it.
    – stangdon
    Mar 23 '18 at 12:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .