256 What’s More and Whatever
Even in their parallel uses (5b– d), the two constructions are not entirely equiva-
lent, however. The sentential relative, which is more Adj, is never found in ini-
tial position (Quirk et al. 1985 : 1118, 1120): * Which is more surprising, he
didn’t inform his parents.^5 Rather, in initial position, which is more Adj serves
as an interrogative main clause (see 5f– g).
Quirk et al. ( 1985 : 1117) also suggest that a parenthetical such as what’s
more surprising (5a) might correspond either to the main clause of the cleft
structure in (6a) or to a wh- clause (nominal relative clause ) in the pseudo-
cleft structure in (2, 6b). The change from either (6a) or (6b) to (5a) would, as
Quirk et al. note, involve a reversal in the syntactic relationship, in which the
that - clause becomes the main clause and the more surprising clause becomes
parenthetical. Thus, the suggested synchronic development here is analogous
to the matrix clause hypothesis (see Section 1.4.1.2 ) in which an original that -
clause is promoted to full- clause status.
(6) 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.
However, Poutsma (1917: 971) notes that although sentences such as (5a)
and (6b) are “practically the same” in meaning, they are “entirely different
construction[s] .” It is also important to note that Quirk et al. ( 1985 ) do not
speak of “derivation,” merely of “correspondence.”
9.3 The History of What’s More and Related Constructions
In order to investigate the history of the what’s more construction,^6 I have made
use of a variety of historical corpora, including EEBO, Lampeter, CED, HC,
ED, ECF, EEPF, CLMET3.0, COHA, OBCP, and UofV.
The questions addressed here are the dates of fi rst occurrence of parenthetical
what’s more , the relation of non- complemented what’s more to complemented
what’s more Adj/ PP, and the relationship of what’s more to which is more.
9.3.1 What’s More
The earliest example of the what’s more construction that I have found dates
from the very end of the sixteenth century:
(7) a. This earth we see and all that liues thereon,/ Without new change, into
destruction fall./ Nay what is more , the life of all these things,/ Their essence,
5 Poutsma notes that He is fond of music, which I am glad to hear cannot be transformed into
What I am glad to hear, he is fond of music ; however, and what I am glad to hear, he is fond of
music may be acceptable (1917: 1348).
6 In what follows, what’s more refers to both the contracted and the uncontracted form.