Английского

circumstance". 
Clauses of attendant circumstance are not much varied in structure 
or semantics and come near to clauses of time. The difference lies 
in the fact that, unlike clauses of time, the event described by a 
clause of attendant circumstance 

---

326
is presented as some sort of background in relation to the event de-
scribed by the principal clause. Clauses of attendant circumstance 
are introduced by the conjunctions while and as. E.g.: As (while) 
the reception was going on, Mr. Smiles was engaged in a lively 
conversation with the pretty niece of the hostess. 
The construction of attendant circumstance may be taken to render 
contrast; so all the clauses of attendant circumstance can be classed 
into "contrastive" (clauses of contrast) and "non-contrastive". The 
non-contrastive clause of circumstance has been exemplified 
above. Here is an example of contrastive attendant circumstance 
expressed clausally: 
Indeed, there is but this difference between us — that he wears fine 
clothes while I go in rags, and that while I am weak from hunger he 
suffers not a little from overfeeding (O. Wilde). 
As is clear from the example, a complex sentence with a contras-
tive clause of attendant circumstance is semantically close to a 
compound sentence, i.e. a composite sentence based on coordina-
tion. 
Clauses of immediate circumstance present a vast and complicated 
system of constructions expressing different explanations of 
events, reasonings and speculations in connection with them. The 
system should relevantly be divided into "factual" clauses of cir-
cumstance and "speculative" clauses of circumstance depending on 
the real or unreal predicative denotations expressed. This division 
is of especial significance for complex sentences with conditional 
clauses (real condition, problematic condition, unreal condition). 
Other types of circumstantial clauses express opposition between 
factual and speculative semantics with a potential relation to some 
kind of condition inherent in the deep associations of the syntactic 
constructions. E.g.: 
Though she disapproved of their endless discussions, she had to 
put up with them. (Real concession) → Though she may disap-
prove of their discussions, she will have to put up with them. 
(Speculative concession) —» If she disapproved (had disapproved) 
of their discussions, why would she put up (have put up) with 
them? (Speculative condition) 
The argument was so unexpected that for a moment Jack lost his 
ability to speak. (Real consequence) → The argument was so un-
expected that it would have frustrated Jack's 

---

327
ability to speak if he had understood the deep meaning of it. 
(Speculative consequence, based on the speculative condition) 
Each type of clauses of circumstance presents its own problems of 
analysis. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that all the types 
of these clauses are inter-related both semantically and paradig-
matically, which may easily be shown by the corresponding trans-
formations and correlations. Some of such correlations have been 
shown on the examples above. Compare also: 
He opened the window wide that he might hear the conversation 
below. (Purpose) → Unless he wanted to hear the conversation be-
low he wouldn't open the window. (Condition) → As he wanted to 
hear the conversation below, he opened the window wide and lis-
tened. (Cause) → Though he couldn't hear properly the conversa-
tion below, he opened the window and listened. (Concession) → 
The voices were so low that he couldn't hear the conversation 
through the open window. (Consequence) → If he hadn't opened 
the window wide he couldn't have heard the conversation. (Condi-
tion) 
Certain clausal types of circumstance are closely related to non-
circumstantial clausal types. In particular, this kind of connection 
is observed between conditional clauses and time clauses and finds 
its specifically English expression in the rise of the contaminated 
if- and when-clauses: If and when the discussion of the issue is re-
newed, both parties will greatly benefit by it. 
Another important variety of clauses of mixed syntactic semantics 
is formed by concessive clauses introduced by the connectors end-
ing in -ever. E.g.: 
Whoever calls, I'm not at home. However tempting the offer might 
be, Jim is not in a position to accept it. 
Clauses of mixed adverbial semantics present an interesting field 
of paradigmatic study. 
The fourth group of adverbial clauses is formed by parenthetical or 
insertive constructions. Parenthetical clauses, as has been stated 
elsewhere, are joined to the principal clause on a looser basis than 
the other adverbial clauses; still, they do form with the principal 
clause a syntactic sentential unity, which is easily proved by the 
procedure of diagnostic elimination. Cf.: 

---

328
Jack has called here twice this morning, if I am not mistaken. → 
(*) Jack has called here twice this morning. 
As is seen from the example, the elimination of the parenthesis 
changes the meaning of the whole sentence from problematic to as-
sertive: the original sense of the utterance is lost, and this shows 
that the parenthesis, though inserted in the construction by a loose 
connection, still forms an integral part of it. 
As to the subordinative quality of the connection, it is expressed by 
the type of the connector used. In other words, parenthetical predi-
cative insertions can be either subordinative or coordinative, which 
is determined by the contextual content of the utterance and ex-
posed by the connective introducer of the clause. Cf. a coordinate 
parenthetical clause: Jim said, and I quite agree with him, that it 
would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organisers. 
Cf. the subordinate correlative of the cited clause: Jim said, though 
I don't quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to 
the common sense of the organisers. 
Parenthetical clauses distinguish two semantic subtypes. Clauses of 
the first subtype, illustrated by the first example in this paragraph, 
are "introductory", they express different modal meanings. Clauses 
of the second subtype, illustrated by the latter example, are "devi-
ational", they express commenting insertions of various semantic 
character. Deviational parenthesis marks the loosest possible syn-
tactic connection of clauses combined into a composite sentence.