Here we are concerned with formulations which represent the current proposition as replacing and supplanting a proposition which would have been expected in its place. Consider, for example,
Surprisingly, McGuinness is especially scathing about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. (Dissent: p.6, Number 4, Summer 2000/2001)
Here, the writer invokes the alternative proposition, that `McGuinness would not be scathing of the chattering classes' but indicates that it does not, after all, apply. The dialogism, therefore is with the alternative position (the unrealised expectation) which is rejected. In situations where a comment adjuncts such as `surprisingly', `amazingly', `bizarrely' are used, the actual or imagined communicative respondent is represented as sharing the unrealised expectation with the writer/speaker. In other instances, however, the expectation is more clearly presented as that of the imagined respondent, and not of the speaker/writer. Consider for example,
They [Kevin and Ian Maxwell, sons of Robert Maxwell] have a lot to prove in the coming years. Now they will not only seek to make their own fortunes but to clear their father's besmirched name. They grew up to see him as the eternal outsider, the man who had fought Establishment prejudice and pettifogging bureaucracy to get where he was. Sure, he broke rules. Yes, he ducked and dived. Admittedly, he was badly behaved. But look at what he had achieved. From nothing, he had become a multinational businessman with an empire stretching across the world, the confidant of statesmen and just as famous himself. (From the Bank of English UKMags corpus)
The extract (from The Times) is concerned with the notorious British businessman, newspaper magnate and former Labour MP, Robert Maxwell (now deceased) and his two sons, Kevin and Ian. In the extract, the writer seeks to explain, even justify, why the two sons might have continued to regard their father favourably, despite the negativity with which Maxwell had come to be viewed generally. (Maxwell had been found after his death to have secretly diverting millions of dollars from two of his companies and from employee pension funds in an effort to keep his business empire solvent.). Here, very obviously, the writer engages with an imagined dialogic partner or voice which is represented as the source of arguments that Maxwell `broke rules', `ducked and dived' and `behaved badly'. The point here, of course, is that, the obvious inferences these arguments give rise to (that Maxwell was a bad man) are represented as not holding, at least for the Maxwell sons. Through a dialogic interaction, certain views are referenced and then rejected. In this, therefore, we see just how dialogic a single-party written text of this type can become through the use of such counter-expectational resources.5 (For a further discussion of the dialogism of concessives, see Hunston 2000: 178-181. For further discussion of the similar functionality of comment adjuncts such as `amazingly' and concessives, see Thompson and Jianglin Zhou 2000)
Counter-Expect includes both the comment adjuncts of the type discussed above (amazingly, surprisingly) and the wide array of formulations for realising what is usually termed `concession'. These formulations typically include some sense of `although', `however' or `but'. A related sense of Counter-Expectation can also be found in many uses of only, just, even, already and still (For a more extended discussion see Martin 1995: 230-234.)
5 There is an interesting additional layer of dialogism here which I haven't really attended to. What we have here, in fact, is the writer representing the position of the Maxwell sons as they represent the position of those who view their father negatively.
