732.8 Conclusion
The development of textual and interpersonal functions in hwæt is conso-
nant with many of the syntactic changes seen during grammaticalization. Most
importantly, hwæt loses its characteristics as a pronoun/ adjective/ adverb, such
as its infl ectional morphology and syntactic position, and undergoes decatego-
rialization to a lesser part of speech (a interjection or pragmatic marker). It
becomes syntactically fi xed in sentence- initial position. Furthermore, there is
divergence or “split” as hwæt continues to function as an interrogative in many
contexts but develops grammaticalized, non- interrogative uses in other con-
texts. However, there appears to be an increase rather than decrease in scope as
hwæt comes to relate to larger stretches of discourse rather than to individual
clauses.
Figure 2.1 summarizes the development of what as it has been set out above.
A number of the uses of what , such as the relative and indefi nite uses, have
been excluded.
2.8 Conclusion
When viewed from a discourse- pragmatic perspective – with careful attention
to the contexts of occurrence – the apparently interjective (non- interrogative,
extra- sentential) hwæt of Old English bears close resemblance to pragmatic
markers in Present- day English. Although hwæt often has a general attention-
calling function, similar to the conative function of interjections, it does not
typically occur in emotive contexts, nor is it a complete utterance in itself,
but rather serves as a comment on the following sentence, thus having nei-
ther the expressive nor the holophrastic qualities of interjections. When hwæt
occurs sentence initially, most often in the context of fi rst- and second- person
pronouns, it seems to be a marker of common or shared knowledge, serving
an interpersonal function, and resembling you know in contemporary English.
When combined with þa ‘then,’ and occurring in narrative (prose) contexts, it
occurs typically with nominal subjects and indicates that one event is either
caused by or implied by a preceding situation or event in the plot develop-
ment. In this usage, its function is discourse cohesive and textual and it bears a
resemblance to inferential so in Present- day English. These two usages do not
survive past early Middle English. Hwæt may also combine with the primary
interjection la and eala in Old English. In these cases the interjections contrib-
ute an emotive force; these collocations are the source of the ‘surprise’ use of
what which arises in Middle English and continues into Present- day English.
They may also have been the model for the combination of what with the pri-
mary interjection ho in Middle English, a form which was used to call or evoke
a person (often tinged with impatience or anger). This usage continues into
Late Modern English but is used only jocularly in Present- day English. The