<ol>
<li><p>The boys went to shopping mall to buy some cookies, loving some chickens.</p></li>
<li><p>The boys went to shopping mall to buy some cookies loving some chickens.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I just made those up.. </p>
<p>In the first sentence which is with a comma "loving some chickens" refers to the boys.</p>
<p>In the second sentence which is without a comma "loving some chickens" refers to cookies.</p>
<p>Am i right?</p>
<p>Yes, you have it right. The first sentence uses “loving some chickens” as a participial phrase in description of the subject of the independent clause to which it is adjacent (“The boys”). This sort of phrase is rather flexible in its placement: For instance, we could write it at the beginning of the sentence instead (but still offsett it with a comma). Alternatively, we could place it after “boys” but before “went,” flanking it in commas. The meaning is maintained.</p>
<p>In the second sentence, however, “loving some chickens,” lacking the necessary comma to indicate that it participially modifies in a non-restrictive capacity, describes the cookies. In other words, the information that these boys love chickens, as the first sentence conveys, does not impart additional understanding as to which boys are meant. It is presupposed that the reader knows which boys the writer refers to.</p>
<p>Because of these subtly varying potentialities that participial phrases may indicate, the differentiation among which requires subtle contextual consideration and knowledge of the role of commas, use of a relative clause may be more readable, as in:</p>
<p>The boys, who love some chickens, went to the shopping mall to buy some cookies.</p>
<p>The boys went to the shopping mall to buy some cookies that love some chickens.
In any case, you were right to being with. I hope this clarifies why.</p>
<p>Thank you so much, Silverturtle! :)</p>