266 What’s More and Whatever
evidence suggests that this structure arose concurrently with (or marginally
earlier than) the other constructions, namely in the late sixteenth century:
(21) a. It is more notable that Titus Manlius dyd, and moch more perteynynge
vnto vs, which so oft haue broken our loyall obeysaunce towardes our
prince. (1536 Morrison, A remedy for sedition [EEBO])
b. No, it is more credible that he will proceede in this case rather with discre-
tion then rashnes, (1579 Guicciardini, The historie of Guicciardin contein-
ing the vvarres of Italie and other partes [EEBO])
c. therefore it is more likely that these two were the causes of Dauids returne
(1607 Willet, An harmonie vpon the fi rst booke of Samuel [EEBO])
9.4 Accounting for the Development of the What’s More Construction
Synchronically, the what’s more comment clause has been compared with the
what’s more Adj construction (5a), with the sentential relative (5b), with cleft
sentence It is more Adj that (6a), and with the What’s more Adj is that pseudo-
cleft sentence (6b) (examples repeated below):
(22) a. What’s more surprising , he didn’t inform his parents.
b. He didn’t inform his parents, which is more surprising.
(23) a. It’s more surprising (that) he didn’t inform his parents.
b. What’s more surprising is (that) he didn’t inform his parents.
These equivalences are suggestive of historical derivation. However, given the
rarity of both the cleft sentence (23a) and the pseudo- cleft sentence (23b) his-
torically (see Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.5 ), these can be dismissed as possible
sources for the what’s more construction. The sentential relative (22b) is also
an unlikely origin. While it appears quite early (early seventeenth century),
its form, function, and sentential position are all quite different from those of
the what’s more construction. It never “loses” its adjectival complement (* He
didn’t inform his parent, which is more ); it is almost always clause fi nal rather
than clause initial (or clause medial); and it has a commentary but not a con-
nective function.
Intuitively, it seems very plausible that what’s more might derive from a
construction with an explicit complement, that is, from what’s more Adj, in
which the adjective explicitly expresses the speaker’s evaluation or comment,
e.g., wonderful , strange , horrible , surprising , odd , and so on. The historical
data presented in Sections 9.3.1– 9.3.3 show that what’s more and what’s more
Adj appear almost simultaneously in the very late sixteenth century. Dating of
the constructions thus makes it diffi cult to propose that the one with an expli-
cit adjective is the source of the one without. Moreover, what’s more Adj and