10.2 Adverbial Sources of Pragmatic Markers 285rather broad brush, painting over many of the complexities (or “messiness”) of
the development of individual pragmatic markers. The shortcomings of both
approaches can be addressed only by detailed, careful, historical studies of
individual pragmatic markers, as have been presented here. This conclusion
will summarize what we have learned about sources and pathways based on the
studies contained in this book.
10.2 Adverbial Sources of Pragmatic Markers
As discussed in Section 1.4.1.1 , the adverbial pathways proposed for the devel-
opment of pragmatic markers include at least two possible routes (see Traugott
1982 , 1995a and passim):
(a) adverb/ preposition > conjunction > pragmatic marker
(b) clause- internal adverb > sentential adverb > pragmatic marker
The studies in this book – of what , whilom , and only – have been undertaken to
interrogate these proposals.
As discussed in Chapter 2 , Old English hwæt ‘what’ presents a particularly
rich example. Already in Old English, hwæt has multiple functions as an inter-
rogative pronoun, adjective, and adverb with propositional functions and as a
complementizer with textual functions. It also functions as what has tradition-
ally been called an “interjection .” While debate surrounds this designation (see
Walkden 2013 ; cf. Cichosz forthcoming ), Chapter 2 argues that if the exclama-
tory use of hwæt is distinguished from that of hwæt þa , we can understand
both as functioning as pragmatic markers. Hwæt occurs sentence initially in
both verse and prose in the context of fi rst- and second- person pronouns; it
functions as a marker of common knowledge with an intersubjective meaning
analogous to that of you know in Present- day English. In contrast, hwæt þa is
restricted to prose contexts, typically with nominal subjects; it functions as a
marker of contextual implication (that one event is either caused by or implied
by a preceding situation or event in the plot development), much like inferen-
tial so in Present- day English. It is discourse cohesive and textual in meaning.
While it would be tempting, given the pathways set out above – as well as
Traugott ’s ( 1982 ) suggestion of the movement from propositional > textual >
interpersonal – to see the pragmatic- marker uses as arising from the comple-
mentizer function of hwæt and the interpersonal use of hwæt developing out
of the textual use of hwæt þa , we do not fi nd evidence to confi rm either of
these developments. Both pragmatic markers arise either before or contem-
poraneously with the complementizer use. The textual hwæt þa is likely a later
development than the interpersonal hwæt , which is found in the earliest poetic
texts. It has been suggested that hwæt occurs as a generalized “particle of inter-
rogation” preceding sentences with declarative word order, and it might be