Abstract :
[en] This paper studies from a synchronic-diachronic perspective the formal and semantic-discursive properties of the qualifying expressions (it’s) no wonder. They are associated with a general discourse schema expressing both speaker attitude and discourse organization: the speaker assesses a proposition (P) as ‘non-surprising’ (Delancey 1997) by assigning no wonder to it as a mirative qualifier (MQ), and motivates this evaluation by an explicit justification (J). The overall rhetorical structure can be viewed as the opposite of concession, which denies expectation (Mann & Thompson 1988): no wonder precisely emphasizes the expected relation between justification and proposition.
In Present-day English, the thetical adverbial uses of no wonder predominate. Their different positions are not in free variation but correlate with two distinct subtypes of the general discourse schema. On the one hand, there is the disjunct no wonder that typically precedes P (1), with J either preceding (1a) or following P (1b). On the other hand, there is anaphoric no wonder, which inherently follows P, and which is followed by J (2).
(1a) J + MQ(P), e.g. You never did have a heart, Sophie. No wonder your first husband had an affair! (WB)
(1b) MQ(P) + J, e.g. No wonder they can't touch him. Over the years he 's had connections up to Downing Street level. (WB)
(2) P + anaMQ + J, e.g. PC-based apps have given way to Web-based services and no wonder: They do a much better job. (WB)
Historically, these two adverbial subtypes are related to different non-thetical multi-clausal constructions predating them. These are, respectively, extraposition, which typically fixes MQ before P (It’s no wonder your first husband… . It’s no wonder they can’t …), and paratactic sentences in which MQ is a separate assertion which refers back to P and announces J (PC-based apps have given way… . And it’s no wonder for they do …).
We will characterize the distinct properties of the disjunct and extraposition patterns on the one hand and the anaphoric adverbial and paratactic patterns on the other in current written (400 tokens from WordbanksOnline) and spoken usage (175 tokens). For the spoken data, we will examine the hypothesis that the anaphoric MQ is prosodically more independent, while in the other patterns the MQ is bound to P (cf. Kaltenböck 2008). The distinct structural relations found between MQ, P and J in the two subtypes will also be systematically charted. Regarding rhetorical structure, we hypothesize that sequence (1a) emphasizes the ‘expectedness’ of a straightforward reason (J) - conclusion (P) relation, while in (1b) and (2) the ‘predictability’ of J from P (2) may be rhetorically exploited to end on a strong point or striking revelation.
These synchronic findings will be fed back into our diachronic reconstruction of the no wonder expressions (cf. Matthijs et al. 2012). We will assess the relative explanatory power for them of Thetical versus Sentence Grammar (Kaltenböck et al. 2011) and primary versus secondary discourse status (Boye & Harder 2012), and also consider the role of persisting rhetorical strategies (Waltereit 2012).
References
Boye, Kasper and Peter Harder. 2012. A Usage-based Theory of Grammatical Status and Grammaticalization. Language 88: 1-44.
Delancey, S. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1: 33-52.
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2008. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42: 83-134.
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva. 2011. On Thetical Grammar. Studies in Language 35: 848-893.
Mann, William and Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory. Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8: 243-281.
Matthijs, Lennart, Kristin Davidse, An Van linden & Lot Brems. 2012. The development of mirative no wonder-constructions. New Reflections on Grammaticalization 5, University of Edinburgh, 16–19 July 2012.
Waltereit, Richard. 2012. On the origins of grammaticalization and other types of language change in discourse strategies. In Grammaticalization and language change. New reflections. ed. Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems and Tanja Mortelmans. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 51-72.
