10.3 Clausal Sources of Pragmatic Markers 293no adjective is “missing” in this case. Thus, there seems to be no historical
justifi cation for postulating that what’s more derives from a “full” construc-
tion with a complement adjective nor that it undergoes a reversal in its syn-
tactic status from main to parenthetical clause.
In contrast, as examined in Section 7.3.5, the rise of the comment clauses
what I’m saying (is) and all I’m saying (is) can be traced to the nominal rela-
tive subjects of wh and all - pseudo- cleft sentences. The continued presence of
is in most cases makes this origin clear. Thus, I postulate that a form such as all
I’m saying, it limits what you can do (1990 PBS_ Newshour [COCA]) would
develop historically from a full biclausal structure all I’m saying is that it limits
what you can do with deletion of that and subsequent loss of connective be ;
this change thus involves a change in the syntactic status of “all I’m saying”
from the subject of the all- cleft to a parenthetical, a development which in
some ways resembles the matrix clause hypothesis.
10.3.4 Other Clausal Sources
As discussed in Section 1.4.1 (see also Brinton 2008: 41– 43, 56– 47), a number
of other clausal sources can be identifi ed for pragmatic parentheticals, includ-
ing second- and third- person matrix clauses (e.g., you know , God knows ),
imperative matrix clauses (e.g., look , say , listen ), matrix verbs complemented
by nominal rather than clausal complements (e.g., I expect , I mean ), and tag
questions (e.g., innit , hear , see ). Sections 9.5 – 9.6 propose a different type of
clausal source for the pragmatic marker whatever , namely, an independent
clause consisting of whatever + you + a verb of desiring, thinking, or say-
ing (i.e., whatever you please/ choose/ like/ will/ want/ desire , whatever you say ,
or whatever you think best/ proper , etc.). Whether these clauses arise as the
object of a deleted imperative do ( do whatever you want ) cannot be deter-
mined. These clauses are contextually and functionally similar to freestanding
whatever , always uttered in response to a suggestion or wish of an interlocutor
or to a contentious claim stated or assumed by the interlocutor. Bare whatever
arises through deletion of the second- person subject and verb of desire, speech,
or cognition, which are easily supplied from context. What is particularly inter-
esting about the source of whatever is that it cannot be linked to one specifi c
structure but must be thought to arise out of a class of similar constructions. It
may also be the case that the general extender or whatever contributed to the
rise of the pragmatic marker as well.
In addition to fi nite forms, Quirk et al. ( 1985 : 1117– 1118) identify three
types of non- fi nite comment clauses, to- infi nitives (e.g., to be precise/ frank/
fair/ honest , to speak candidly , to put it briefl y ), ing participles (e.g., broadly/
loosely/ fi guratively speaking , putting it mildly/ crudely ), and ed participles
(e.g., put in another way , worded plainly ). Section 7.2 investigates two such