No es por nada: Spanish argumentative preface and discourse operator

No es por nada: Spanish argumentative preface and discourse operator Catalina Fuentes Rodríguez Dpto. Lengua Espa~ nola, Lingüística y Teoría de la Literatura, Universidad de Sevilla, Palos de la Frontera, Sevilla, s.n. 41004 Spain article info Article history: Received 3 June 2020 Received in revised form 6 October 2021 Accepted 11 October 2021 Available online 7 November 2021 Keywords: Macrosyntax Pragmatic marker Argumentative preface Enunciation Facework abstract No es por X pero Y is a Spanish structure that can appear combined with an adversative sentence and anticipates a possible misinterpretation by the listener. It acts as a semi-fixed construction. It respects the communicative intention of the speaker and mitigates the negative effects that what is said can have on his/her social image. At the same time, when no es por nada appears as an independent form in a peripheral position or as a reactive turn, it functions as an assertion enhancer with sentence mobility. This function as a discourse operator reveals a grammaticalization process of cooptation that is not yet completed as it still coexists with the free construction. ©2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. Introduction This paper aims at describing the structure at the beginning of the utterance “No es por [lit. is not for] þXþsentence Y”and the expression that comes up: No es por nada [not for nothing] when acting independently (in peripheral position or as reactive turn). This construction is commonly found in oral interaction and other discourses that reproduce or imitate it (see the discourse on social networks). This construction introduces highlighted information after denying a possible cause of the enunciation. Consequently, the preface anticipates and guides the listener's interpretation. It works as an element of reformulation in advance. In this work, we look for those syntactic contexts where this construction appears, its variants, and the argumentative functions it performs. Apart from considering the degree of fixation of this construction, we evaluate the possibility of no es por nada to be further advanced in the grammaticalization process until it becomes a pragmatic marker (Fraser, 1996,2009). This study is part of a research project on macrosyntax and adopts a pragmalinguistic methodology as defined by Fuentes- Rodríguez (2017a). In macrosyntax we apply the approach of Blanche Benveniste (2003),Berrendonner (1990,2002). These authors extend the syntax to the utterance, including the peripheral complements (pr efixes, suffixes, postfixes) that appear modifying the entire sentence and that cannot be explained from the point of view of the sentence. An utterance is the minimal unit of text organization. On the periphery, there are indications about the contextualization of the information and the references to the speaker's subjectivity and his/her communicative intention (see Fuentes-Rodríguez, 2017b). This theoretical framework allows us to explain the structure we are analyzing since it occupies a peripheral position that does not depend upon the core of the sentence. E-mail address: [email protected]. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Pragmatics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.010 0378-2166/©2021 The Author. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 The starting point in Pragmatic Linguistics methodology is the discourse, which takes place in a context, and performs a multidimensional study. Within a discursive type, macro and micro textual structure act in an interconnected way. The macrostructure includes the structuring of the discourse, its informative, argumentative, and polyphonic organization. This methodological approach allows us to analyze communication taking into account the objective pursued by the speaker. This is fundamental to be able to analyze our object of study: expressions that seek to attenuate a possible negative effect of what is said on the listener. The corpus is composed by different contemporary Spanish corpora: corpus MEsA, consisting of digital discourse, and Crea and Corpes, 1 both belonging to the RAE (Royal Academy of Spanish Language). We will analyze the appearance of this structure through the historical corpus of Spanish Language (CORDE). Hence, we can document when the expression no es por nada starts to become fixed in Spanish. 2. Argumentative frame or prefatory phrase? According to the Constructional Grammar (Fillmore, 1988;Goldberg, 1995,2003), “Cisa CONSTRUCTION iff def Cisa formemeaning pair <F i ,S i >in such a way that some aspect of F i or some aspect of S i is not strictly predictable from C's components or from other previously established constructions”(Goldberg, 1995: 4). As Goldberg argues, these “stored pairings of form and function”include “morphemes, words, idioms, partially lexically filled and fully general linguistic patterns”(Goldberg, 2003: 219). Among the syntactic constructions where we can find the structure “no es por X”(“no es por X, sino por Y”;“no es por X, es por Y,”“no es por X, pero Y”), we focus on the last. This construction is made up by a preceding enunciative complement (Guti errez Ord o~ nez, 1997). 2 “No es por X”, which refutes the cause of the enunciation. Pero [but] usually follows this construction, linking it to the propositional predicative act. Then, the construction is [No es þcause of the act of saying þpero þsentence]. In an emphasized structure, the conjunction pero connects an extrapropositional complement (Dik, 1997) to the rest of the sentence. Likewise, we find it along with parenthetical sentences that could be attached to the host utterance with a coordinating conjunction y[and], o[or] (see Author, 2017b). This construction appears in different contexts and, in our opinion, it shows different degrees of fixation until a new form emerges: no es por nada [not for nothing]. Constructive freedom is lost and the structure advances to its grammaticalization as a comment clause (Brinton, 2008)ora pragmatic marker (Fraser, 1996). Currently, all these stages coexist, providing with an interesting overview of the evolution process. 2.1. No es por X þY, argumentative frame? The prefatory phrase The pragmatic function of the initial structure is an argumentative frame (Lo Cascio, 1998) that establishes the reasons for the enunciation. At the same time, the speaker rejects those supposed arguments of the interlocutor (polyphonically 3 ). In this way, the speaker specifies the reasons for uttering the speech act, mitigating the effects (but Y) it has, according to what is codified and generally admitted. Thus, the speaker is anticipating a possible misinterpretation of his/her speech. The discourse contains at least two voices (polyphony): the speaker of the utterance and the interlocutor or other virtual listener who can misinterpret what is said ( enonciateur for Ducrot). El locutor L muestra un enunciador (que puede ser  el mismo u otro) que aserta cierta proposici on P. Dicho de otro modo, introduce en su discurso una voz-que no es necesariamente la suya-responsable de la aserci on de P. (Ducrot,1984,152). [The speaker L presents an enunciator (who may be himself or another) who asserts a certain proposition P. In other words, he introduces in his speech a voice -which is not necessarily his own-responsible for the assertion of P]. Nolke bases his theory, ScaPoLine, on the existence of different points of view within the linguistic material. Ainsi le locuteur peut-il construire plusieurs types d'images de lui-m^ eme, ou plut^ ot des divers r^ oles qu'il est susceptible de jouer dans ses  enonc es. On en distinguera deux types principaux: LOC, qui est une image du locuteur dans son r^ ole de constructeur de l’ enonciation (et partant, de son sens), et diff erentes images de lui comme source de points de vue. C'est donc LOC qui construit la configuration polyphonique dont il fait lui-m^ eme partie. Selon la ScaPoLine, la 1 We first started with MEsA corpus (http://www.grupoapl.es/materiales-corpus/corpus-mesa), due to its nature and because it is the most current corpus, but since we did not have many hits in it, we carried out the same search in the Corpus of Reference of Current Spanish (CREA) and the Spanish corpus of 21st Century (CORPES). This allows us for a broader vision of the performance of this construction in today's Spanish as well as it allows us to contrast the construction variations. Both corpora of the RAE include various types of discourse. According to RAE (1975e2004), CREA contains about 160 million form. Corpes comprises 312 million orthographic forms. The MEsA corpus only includes digital discourse, and it has a length of 3.020.639 words, although it is under construction. 2 According to enunciation theory (Benveniste, 1966,1970) the enunciation is the individual act of producing a statement, directed to an addressee, in certain circumstances. See also R ecanati (1979),Ducrot (1984) and Nølke (1993,2001),Nølke et al. (2004). For Nolke, the listener's interpretation instructions, which are expressed in the linguistic structure, appear in the different contexts of realisation (Nølke et al., 2004: 23). Linguistic analysis must take into account all these factors and, above all, the intention of the speaker, as well as the different voices in the discourse (polyphony). 3 Polyphonic analysis, according to Ducrot (1984), differentiates between the speaker who emits the sounds (locuteur) and the  enonciateur (utterer) who is responsible for the speech acts of speech. Ducrot bases his Argumentation Theory in the dialogic process that is inherent to speech. The difference in voices and figures in discourse can be explained by this as they can combine in an enunciation. Discourse continuity of utterances can give a clue about its argumentative function. See also Reyes (1994). C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 237 configuration se compose de quatre  el ements: Le locuteur-en tant que constructeur (LOC) assume la responsabilit ede l’ enonciation. Les points de vue (pdv) sont des entit es s emantiques porteuses d'unne source qui est dite ‘avoir le pdv’. Les sources sont des variables. Elles correspondent aux  enonciateurs d’Anscombre et Ducrot (…)(Nølke, 2009, 86). [Thus, the speaker can construct several types of images of himself, or rather of the various roles he is likely to play in his utterances. We will distinguish two main types: LOC, which is an image of the speaker in his role as constructor of the utterance (and therefore of its meaning), and different images of himself as a source of points of view. Therefore, it is LOC who constructs the polyphonic configuration of which he himself is part. According to the ScaPoLine, the configuration consists of four main elements: The speaker-as-constructor (LOC) takes responsibility for the utterance. Points of view (pdv) are semantic entities carrying a source which is said to ‘have the pdv’. Sources are variables. They correspond to the enunciators of Anscombre and Ducrot]. Nølke et al. (2004) point out that in “Ce mur n'est pas blanc”[this wall is not white], two points of view are implied: pdv1: “The wall is white”, someone thinks so, as opposed to his statement, which coincides with that of pdv2: “pdv1 est unjustifi e” [pdv1 is unjustified] (Nølke et al., 2004:26e27). This polyphony is shown in discourse through linguistic traits. For instance, quotations, evidential imperfect (Reyes 1994), echoes or negation. In this regard, Ducrot explained that denial implies the rejection of information uttered by another  enonciateur. 4 Likewise, he defined it for the contraposition stated for pero [but] (see Ducrot 1977 about mais). In the structure studied here there is a negation at the beginning (No es por … ). With this expression the speaker 1 rejects this possible interpretation of the virtual viewpoint 2 (presupposed). The following fragment clearly shows the function of this preface (prefatory phrase): the intention of not being misinterpreted. (1) Usuario 1 (hombre): No es por el país, no me malinterpreteis pero noruega me la sopla, es por la oportunidad laboral, es una compa~ nía importante y para mi currículum sería genial. En Espa~ na desarrollar videojuegos est a jodido (MEsA, FO 2017 abr-jul SPA 06) [(1) User 1 (male): It's not the country, don't get me wrong, but I couldn't care less about Norway, it is because of the job opportunity, it's an important company and for my curriculum it would be great. In Spain it's complicated to develop videogames] User 1 denies that his actions are motivated by the country, Norway. The user does this because he/she assumes that another enunciator (it could be the addressee) believes that could be the reason. The speaker can use this structure strategically. User 1 is aware of this possible interpretation (“I couldn't care less about Norway”can be understood as xenophobic) and could actually intend to offend or criticize but recognizing it could threaten his face. 5 This stipulation at the beginning is used by ways of precaution, protecting his face. According to Lo Cascio (1998:43e44), the argumentative frame refers to “the pragmatic situations in which the argument is developed: topic, types of interlocutors, (…), objectives, conditions, sociolinguistic and cultural situations, time and space, precedents of the discussion, types of texts, etc.”(my translation). This frame can include all those recommendations that the speaker wants the listener to take into account when interpreting his/her message. The preface is necessary in order to fulfill the speaker's expectations as far as argumentation is concerned. He anticipates the possibility of inferences that the listener could make or its possible objection. It functions as an enunciative and argumentative construction: enunciative because the speaker expresses the reason for his/her act of saying, anticipating a misinterpretation by the listener; and argumentative because he/she wants to convince the other to accept the uttered speech. This is developed below. The voice of interlocutor 1 prevails as it continues from pero. This element leads to the most relevant information. The first fragment is marginal from a phonetic and syntactic point of view. As we can see, this polyphonic contrast is expressed by means of negation, the contrast established by pero, and also by the peripheral position of the construction at the beginning of the statement. All of these elements combined are used for determining the meaning of the construction. This construction adopts a group function in a first step towards fixation. We can compare it in the following examples: (2) Siente frío, pero no es por la visita de Augusta sino porque est a mal abrigado. (Corpes, Majfud, Jorge: La reina de Am erica. Alicante: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 2004) [He is cold, but it is not because of Augusta's visit, but because he is not warm enough] In this utterance, the subject of the main verb (es) is the infomation expressed in the previous sentence (He feels cold). It is followed by a complement of cause: “because of Augusta's visit”. In (1) “no es por el país”[It's not the country], the subject of the verb can only be found if it is assumed that there exists a hidden structure of the kind “no es por el país por lo que lo digo”[I'm not saying it because of the country]. This syntactic distribution is a first step in the extrapropositional functioning of the construction. This is relevant for the fixation process that ends with no es por nada as we will review in the following section. 4 See also Nølke (2009, 84). 5 We interpret face in the sense of Goffman (1967),Bravo (2005) as a social image created in interaction. It is a basic concept in the theory of verbal impoliteness (Brown and Levinson 1987[1978],Culpeper, 1996;Bousfield, 2013) These prefaces serve to attenuate a possible face threatening act (FTA). C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 238 2.2. The construction “No es por þnoun, pronoun, verb, … , pero þsentence.” This structure, studied by Lanero (2018), is a construction that develops procedural meaning 6 that, at the same time, generates new discourse operators. It would be a semi-fixed or hybrid construction, with fixed and free slots. [C]onstructions range from schematic to substantive (the syntax-lexicon continuum). Syntactic structures and idiomatic expressions differ in their schematicity, thought in a gradient way. Constructional approaches claim that a vast part of the grammar consists of grammatical constructions that combine open slots with lexically specified ones (Gras, 2016, pp. 123e124). It is made up of a fixed part, no es por, that allows to position nouns and infinitives after it, which are usually negative. Within these, the speaker can select any lexical element, although the whole structure (no es por þnp or infinitive) adopts a group function, as in the instances below: (3) Usuario 33 (hombre): no es por criticar a los espa~ noles y mucho menos piensen que soy xenofobo, pero realmente, algunos hacen da~ no a la humanidad, es por eso que en latinoamerica son odiados, porque no han habido mas b arbaros que ustedes, pero todo en la vida trae una factura y ya se las cobraran. el único espa~ nol que merece respeto es aless gibaja y hace olvidar que son gente mala. (MEsA, YT 2015 ago 10 ALE 01) [User 33 (male): I don't mean to criticize the Spaniards and don't you [lit. and much less] think I am xenophobic, but really, some do harm to humanity, that is why in Latin America you guys are hated, because there have never been barbarians like you, but everything in life is paid and you will be accounted for. the only Spaniard who deserves respect is aless gibaja and he makes us forget that you are bad people.] (4) No es por fastidiarte la fiesta, pero no creo que seas el tipo de chico dispuesto a esperar…no s e si me explico. (Corpes, M.Ron: Culpa mía. Barcelona: Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, 2017) [Not to rain on your parade, but I don't think you're the kind of guy who's willing to wait…I don't know if I'm making myself clear]. (5) No es por presumir, pero yo ya era una joven hermosa y casadera y me hablaba con Manolo. (Corpes; A.Díaz Gonz alez: Los a~ nos de la ballena. El misterio del pozo masconato.www.literanda.com: Literanda, 2014) [Not to brag, but I was already a beautiful, marriageable young woman, and I was engaged to Manolo]. The following table illustrates construction possibilities: Lanero (2018) focused mainly on the adversative construction that supposes a change of orientation in the enunciation, and on the difference with other relative restrictive sentences (“no es por lo que lo digo”). The presence of negation implies a polyphonic dimension. [No es por X] denies the communicative intention of the speaker. X is an enunciative complement, therefore the reason for uttering. Denying it implies a confrontation with the opinion of the other alleged utterer. The presence of pero directs the listener towards the second segment, which appears as the main information (Ducrot, 1984; Flamenco, 1999;Nølke et al., 2004). Soient p et q deux phrases; enoncer p PA q. c'est: (1) Pr esenter p comme un argument possible pour une eventuelle conclusion r. (2) Pr esenter q comme un argument contre cette conclusion, i.e., dans le cadre de la th eorie argumentative pr esent ee dans Ducrot 1973, comme un argument pour :r. (3) Attribuer  a q plus de force argumentative en faveur de i, que l’on n'en atribue  a p en faveur de r. La suite p PA q, prise dans sa totalit e, est donn e argumentativemente orient ee en faveur de :r. (Anscombre-Ducrot, 1977, 28) [If we consider P et Q to be two sentences; then p PA q is: (1) To present p as a possible argument for a possible conclusion r (2) To present q as an argument against this conclusion, i.e., within the framework of the argumentative theory presented in Ducrot 1973, as an argument for :r. Table 1 No es por þX: forms and functions. Forms Functions No es por þnegative content: a) Infinitives: to bother, to annoy, to criticize, to despise, to justify myself, to rub salt into the wound… The negative effect is minimized by anticipating it. Emphasized and reinforced information is presented, and the recipient is warned that there is no negative or impolite intention. Pragmatic function: Mitigation of impoliteness. It may be a criticism of a possible interpretation of the other, which is negative for the speaker and is refuted with this intervention. No es por introduces the interlocutor's argument. It gives way to the informatively relevant part and assumed by the current speaker. b) Nouns: sorrow, sexism, malpractice No es por þpositive content: pretty, show off, brag about, flatter It anticipates an incomplete interpretation: the speaker does not intend for the message to be interpreted as flattering or persuasive. Pragmatic function: Facework, to mitigate something that is considered undesirable according to the norms regulating the interaction. 6 It provides instructions on how to process received information. See Wilson (2016). C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 239 (3) To attribute to q more argumentative force in favour of i that the one that can be attributed to p in favour of r. The sequence p PA q, taken as a whole, is argumentatively oriented in favour of :r.] Both segments joined by pero show two points of view which are different and anti-oriented. In [X pero Y], the first segment leads to conclusion p, and the second to “no p”. The speaker identifies with this second point of view. For this reason, we need to consider that the first segment acts as background and the adversative clause appears as the foreground (Averintseva-Klisch, 2008). The speaker reinforces the utterance and denies the reason for what is said: “It's not because of X that I say this, but Y (relevant information)”. The speaker establishes this exception to avoid an interpretation that could affect his/her face. Thus, the force of Y and its possible effects are lessened. He/she anticipates the interlocutor and rejects his/her possible objections. This makes us infer that Y constitutes content that could be misinterpreted by the listener and, at the same time, it can be attributed to socially improper or offensive reasons. For example, out of the speaker's envy, in order to damage the listener's face or to impose himself to the listener in some way. Hence, saying “I am the best”is not positively considered in a social sense: it is negatively valued that a person praises him/herself and imposes it on others. For this reason, the speaker can mitigate that utterance with the expression: (6) No es por presumir, pero soy la mejor [Not to be arrogant, but I am the best] This prefatory phrase (argumentative frame) allows for a correct fitting of the speaker and the listener's face in the interactive relationship. The first segment can serve as a mitigation strategy and is intended to solve a possible interactive conflict. This is also the intention of verbs and nouns used in the construction No es por þX. They usually are negative elements, and when they are positive, they refer to something socially unacceptable. (see Table 1 above). The syntactic pattern negation þaffirmation is very common in other instances of affirmation reinforcement: the corrective structure “No es X sino Y”[lit. “It's not X but it's Y”]or“No es X, es Y”[lit. “It's not X, it's Y”] propose this polyphonic dimension (Anscombre-Ducrot 1977;Nolke et al., 2004). We can see this on the following tweet: (7) Usuario 23 (no identificado): Totalmente de acuerdo. No s olo con Cepeda, con todo el mundo fue una absoluta vergüenza. No es por lo que dicen sino por c omo lo dicen. Decir por ejemplo que la canci on de Amaia es f acil y que es injusto me parece una absoluta falta de respeto a todo el mundo. Muy deficiente. (MEsA, TW 2017 dic OPE 08) [User 23 (unidentified): I totally agree. Not only with Cepeda, with everyone he was an absolute shame. It is not what they say but how they say it. To say, for example, that Amaia's song is easy and that it is unfair seems to me like a total lack of respect to everybody. Very deficient]. Lanero (2018:47) suggests the construction fixation and the possible interpretation of the first segment as an enunciation element. For her No es por … is a variant of No lo digo por … , which means the first segment is enunciative. The fact that No es por … can also occur followed by a relative expression reinforces the hypothesis. We can see this in the following fragment from Corpes: (8) No es por jactarme que lo digo, pero luego de un mes de intensiva tarea, pienso que de verdad me he convertido en un experto operador de tel efonos m oviles. (Corpes, G. Machado: «Educaci on permanente». El devorador de paisajes. Montevideo: Estuario, 2011). [I'm not saying it to boast but after a month of intensive work, I actually believe I have become an expert mobile phones operator]. In effect, the speaker denies a complement of enunciation, the possible reason for his speech act (which follows after pero). Thespeakerwantstomakehiscommunicative intentionclearsothathiscommunicationis not understood in thewrongsense. In (8) he/she thinks that his/her interlocutor may interpret his assertion that he has become an expert as a pretentious speech act. The verbs that appear and most of the usual expressions in this context express intrinsically impolite acts. Lanero has gathered the following: aguar la fiesta; cotillear; criticar; dar la tabarra; desconfiar; desilusionar; desmerecer; despreciar; difamar; echar en cara; escurrir el bulto; exagerar; faltar; fastidiar; incordiar; inquietar; insistir; intrigar; hablar (desear) mal; hurgar en la herida; joder; jorobar; llevar la contraria; menospreciar; meter ciza~ na; molestar; ofender. Y otros que apuntan al “autoelogio del hablante o al elogio excesivo hacia el interlocutor, actitudes que socialmente tambi en se valoran de forma negativa en una cultura como la nuestra [And others verbs that point to “self-praise of the speaker or excessive praise towards the interlocutor, attitudes that, socially, are also valued negatively in a culture like ours]: alabarme; alardear; darme jab on; d armelas de (ech armelas de); fardar; farolear; hacerse el chulo; hacer la pelota; halagar; presumir”](Lanero, 2018: 55). For this reason, she defines it as a structure with mitigating value, a “disarmer”, taking the term from Boretti (2000), but this mitigation does not prevent the perception of contradictory messages. This “dilemma”characterizes what Lauerbach (1989:35) calls double bond schema: The Double-Bind Schema is a special case of the Disarm Schema in that it makes partly explicit the dilemma speakers face when they are caught between the necessity of observing the Rules of Politeness and that of pursuing an interactional goal that can only be reached by violating those rules. These disarmers constitute a good sample showing how strongly conventionalized polite speech is. Así pues, No es por X prepara el terreno, es un indicio formal de la inminente transgresi on de una regla de cortesía y, en consecuencia, previene sobre el verdadero prop osito del locutor. El valor opositivo de pero es esencial para la reinterpretaci on del prefacio en sentido contrario, de modo que las expectativas generadas por este se ver an confirmadas con la enunciaci on de Y(Lanero, 2018: 58). C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 240 [Therefore, No es por X prepares the ground, it is a formal indication of the imminent transgression of a politeness rule and, in consequence, it warns about the true purpose of the speaker. The oppositional value of pero [but] is essential for the interpretation of preface in the opposite sense, thus, the expectations that it creates will be confirmed by uttering Y.] Examples of this structure can be found in all corpora. Hence, in Corpus MEsA: (9) Usuario 13 (no identificado): @Usuario22 No es por restar m eritos a Don  Alvaro de Baz an, pero afirmar que es el mejor marino de la historia de Espa~ na y del mundo estando tambi en un tal BLAS DE LEZO por enmedio…(MEsA, PW 2017 feb-jul MUN 05) [User 13 (unidentified): @User 22 not to detract from the merits of Don  Alvaro de Baz an, but saying that he is the best sailor in the history of Spain and the world when we also have a certain BLAS DE LEZO in the scene…] (10) User 13 (unidentified) A: No te ha pasado que [ B: No te ha pasado quee Y C: No te ha pasado que Y D: No te ha pasao nunca que Y/se te estropea el coche [x A: xyy no es por por vacilar [//pero sabes bastante de mec anica (MEsA, YT 2016 feb DIA 01) [A: Has it happened to you that[ B: Has it happened to you that Y C: Has it happened to you that Y] D: Has it ever happened to you thatYyour car breaks down[x A: xnot to brag[//but you know a lot about mechanic] MEsA corpus also contains forms of suspended structures where the propositional content of Y is implied or replaced by an image: (11) Usuario 191 (no identificado): No es por ofender pero (MEsA, IG 2018 ene 21 LEO 01) [User 191 (unidentified): Not to offend but We could say that we are facing the fixation of a syntactic pattern [enunciative complement þpero [but] þsentence]. In the corpus analyzed, we can still find some examples where the first segment correlates to another sentence. The following user extends the complement [No es por þinfinitive þy mucho menos [lit. and much less] (scalar operator) þsubjunctive]. (3) Usuario 33 (hombre): no es por criticar a los espa~ noles y mucho menos piensen que soy xenofobo, pero realmente, algunos hacen da~ no a la humanidad, es por eso que en latinoamerica son odiados, porque no han habido mas b arbaros que ustedes, pero todo en la vida trae una factura y ya se las cobraran. el único espa~ nol que merece respto es aless gibaja y hace olvidar que son gente mala. (MEsA, YT 2015 ago 10 ALE 01) [User 33 (male): I don't mean to criticize the Spaniards and don't you [lit. and much less] think I am xenophobic, but really, some do harm to humanity, that is why in Latin America you guys are hated, because there have never been barbarians like you, but everything in life is paid and you will be accounted for. the only Spaniard who deserves respect is aless gibaja and he makes us forget that you are bad people.] In Crea and Corpes, we can find a greater number of verbal forms, similar to those pointed out by Lanero: complicate matters, point out, presume …We also find it along with a pronoun: no es por eso [lit. it is not because of that] (56 instances in Crea), also as refutation of the cause of the enunciation. Most of the time, though, we find it as a free construction. It is closer to interactive use when it comes to replicating the interlocutor: (12) ADELAIDA.-¿Como el elecho? LUIS.-Exacto. Por aquí hay muchos, son arbustos improductivos que crecen por generaci on espont anea. ADELAIDA.-No es por eso. Mi padre desea que yo complete mi educaci on, eso es todo. LUIS.-¿Tu educaci on? ¿Qu e es lo que te falta por aprender? (Crea, C.Gallego: Adelaida, 1990) [ADELAIDA.- Like the fern? LUIS.-Exactly. There are plenty around here. They are unproductive bushes that grow by spontaneous generation. ADELAIDA.-I didn't mean that [lit. it is not because of that] My father wants me to have an education, that's all. LUIS.- your education? What's left for you to learn?] In sum, the structure that underlies the use of no es por nada that we study in this work is a construction that carries a polyphonic meaning (enunciation) and a possible intensifier (argumentation) or focus function (see Fig. 1): - the negation þaffirmation sequence confronts two points of view to highlight the second - in the first segment, the communicative intention of the speaker is denied -pero allows to focus the information on the second segment. This structure is a productive construction, as it allows the use of different lexical items expressing different purposes. It reinforces an assertion by opposing it to those arguments that must be rejected in order to take the text in its correct sense. A concrete case is the construction No es por nada, pero Y [lit. It is not for nothing, but Y] with a generic negation. No es por nada [No es por X, pero Y…]: metadiscoursive complement. Peripheral, it anticipates the objection. It denies an argument (X) and mitigates an assertion that can threaten the face of the listener. It mitigates disagreement. Fig. 1. No es por X, pero Y. C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 241 seems to have advanced in the process of fixation until it appears in syntactic contexts that are typical of pragmatic markers, as shown below. 3. No es por nada No es por nada shares structure with the first segment of the construction previously seen, but it replaces the enunciative complement with the pro-form nada [lit. nothing]. Denial is generic, encompassing all possible reasons, and disabling a negative interpretation: Aquí el aporte informativo es pr acticamente inexistente. Su funci on se limita, pues, a advertir sobre el car acter m as o menos conflictivo de las aserciones, preguntas o peticiones que siguen (Lanero, 2018: 57)[Here the informative contribution is practically non-existent. Its function is limited to warning about the more or less conflictive nature of the assertions, questions or requests that follow]. The author related this expression to other anticipatory and mitigating structures already evidenced by Albelda (2010: 64). In fact, as we can subsequently see, the generalization that establishes nada also extends the set of pragmatic possibilities. Regarding the syntactic structure, we find three different schemes (see Fig. 2): 3.1. [No es por nada, pero þsentence] No es por nada acts as a minimizer or disarmer, setting a warning or alert. Its performance is complex. It affects several areas simultaneously: interpretation, effects on the interlocutor's face, and argumentative function. - Speaker's protection frame: It makes inactive an inference from the listener about the existence of a negative intention of the speaker when saying Y. - The act that follows has a mitigation function that deactivates its impolite load or minimizes it. - As a consequence, it constitutes a reinforcement of what has been said. This preface is necessary for the speaker because what is stated after pero can be interpreted in an impolite or inadequate way, socially speaking. The results found in the MEsA corpus present the mitigation of a recrimination or an accusation. For instance, in (13) we can see an attack to young people (user 35) for not fixing the issue they are talking about. It is based on the widespread bias that young people are not fully aware of their role in the society. User 13 therefore criticises the condescending tone he uses. (13) Usuario 13 (hombre): [Menci on al usuario 35] jajaja ojo a la condescendencia con la k[que] hablas chaval, jajaja, eres pat etico amigo, y sinceramente, y no es por nada, pero son los de tu generaci on los k[que] no han sido ni est an siendo capaces de arreglar esto, así k[que] deja de criticar las generaciones (MEsA, IG 2018 abr 27 FEM 01) [User 13 (man) [referring to user 35] hahaha look at the condescension you use, kiddo, hahaha, you are pathetic, my friend, and honestly, and not for nothing, but the people from your generation are the ones that are not and have never been capable of fixing this, so you better stop criticizing generations]. Compared to the previous examples (por þNP or an infinitive) where the specific reason is made clear, in this case, it is generalized to “There is no reason”. We would therefore be facing an excusatio. Sometimes, no es por nada, from a discursive and pragmatic point of view, presents an excuse in regards to a possible accusation or justification: (14) Usuario 118 (hombre): @sanchezcastejon @greenpeace_esp Yo, no es por nada pero creo recordar q fue Zapatero el q[ue] sent o las bases del impuesto al sol. Y en CM permiti o cementerio d neum aticos…[emoticono pensativo y emoticono con mascarilla] (MEsA, TW 2017 jun SAN 01) [User 118 (man) @sanchezcastejon @greenpeace_esp I, not for nothing but I believe it was Zapatero the one who laid the foundations for the sun tax. And in CM allowed for a tires cemetery …] In this tweet the theme, Yo, that coincides with the subject, is placed at the beginning of the sentence, as a thematization complement (Hidalgo, 2003;Fern andez Lorences, 2010). Syntactic dislocation shows it. As a consequence, no es por nada is put in between. Figure 2: No es por nada constructions. - [No es por nada, pero X ]: Construction enunciative complement + pero + sentence - [No es por nada, X]. Enunciative complement + assertion [X. No es por nada.]: Assertion + enunciative element. Fig. 2. Syntax of No es por nada. C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 242 Some other variants can be: (15) Usuario 12 (hombre): No es por nada pero seguramente yo actuaría así tambi en, y no por faltar el respeto en algo tan serio. Sino porque soy nervioso y me río (MEsA, TW 2017 may-sep MAL 01) [User 12 (man) Not for nothing, but most likely I would act the same way, and not for being disrespectful regarding such a serious matter. But because I am always nervous, and I laugh] In (15), the first structure is connected by means of “y no por faltar al respeto …”[not for being disrespectful], which is still seen as an enunciation complement. In (16), user 211 gives certain information to justify something that was mentioned earlier. (16) Usuario 211 (hombre): No es por nada, pero en el DNI vienen los nombres de los padres (MEsA, YT 2017 jul-sep VID 03) [User 211 (man)Not for nothing, but the ID card shows the name of the parents A variation could be no es por mala onda [not to be nasty] which also corresponds to elements with a procedural meaning: (17) Usuario 200 (hombre): No es por mala onda pero es malisimo jaja (MEsA, YT 2017 jul-sep VID 04) [User 200 (man) Not to be nasty but the name is horrible, haha] In the following example we can see an interrogation that at the same time implies a criticism and a suggestion. (18) Usuario 5 (mujer): No es por nada, pero porqu e (sic) no pones fotos tuyas y no de una web. (MEsA, FO 2016 oct-dic JAR 08) [User 5 (woman) Not for nothing but why wouldn't you put your own pictures instead of getting them from a website.] On other occasions, it precedes an argument, which delegitimizes what was said by the other interlocutor in a situation of confrontation. The argument is, therefore, reinforced. (19) Usuario 39 (no identificado): O estas exagerando, o te inventaste la mitad. SOLO voy a salones chinos para hacerme las u~ nas. 1-por que las hacen mejor que las espa~ nolas. 2-por que salen mejor de precio. Yno es por nada, pero el sitio que tengo m as cerca esta siempre a reventar. Clientas habituales que se comen 1 hora de espera para ponerse sus u~ nas. Y no tardan 30 min, si no sus 2 horitas bien dedicadas. (..) Lo siento pero lo que has escrito tu me suena m as a cuento para quitarte competencia que otra cosa. (MEsA, BL 2011 jul 5 MUN 01) [User 39 (unidentified) Either you are exaggerating, or you made up half of it. I ONLY go to Chinese salons to get my nails done.1-because they do them better than Spanish girls do. 2-because they have a better price. And not for nothing, but the closest place that I have is always about to burst. Regular customers who queue for an hour waiting to get their nails done. And it doesn't take 30 min, but at least 2 hours well dedicated. (..) I'm sorry but what you have written sounds to me more like a story to get rid of competitors than anything else.] User 39 reacts against a user that is criticizing her going to Chinese salons and justifies it. After this, user 39 argues that many people do it too. In the following example, we can see again the confronting opinions of two users: (20) Usuario 2 (hombre): Pues no es por nada, pero estoy con el comentario 1. Me parece una pedazo de serie, que me deja con ganas de m as. Quiz as es que a ti te gusten series de gran calidad y fren eticas como…¿Walking Dead? (MEsA, BL 2013-14 nov-oct SOL 01) [User 2 (man): Well, not for nothing but I agree with comment 1. I think it's a great series that makes me want to see more of it. Maybe it's just that you like series of great quality and frenzied like…The Walking Dead?] No es por nada functions as a single element because we cannot syntactically destroy the group, neither insert words in the middle nor expand it: *“No es por nada ni por gusto”[not for nothing neither for fun] *“No es ni siquiera por nada”[lit. it is not even for nothing]. There are other expressions in which nada can be integrated in an idiom or an argumentative marker: de nada [you are welcome] (21), nada m as [nothing else], nada m as y nada menos [no more and no less than], m as que nada [more than anything]. (21) dMuchas gracias, se~ nora ddijo, antes de partir. dYa hijito, de nada. Vuelve cuando quieras, m as bien. Ya sabes d onde atiendo. (Corpes, R.Tola Pedraglio: Flores amarillas. Lima: Alfaguara, 2013.) [-Thank you so much, ma'am ehe said, before leaving. - Sure, dear, you are welcome. Come back whenever you want to, actually. You know where to find me.] Thus, no es por nada drops the rest when it goes by its own. It remains unmentioned, omitted and only the exception remains (the mitigation of the assertion), which becomes part of it. It could even be a suggestion, a mitigated request, or perhaps an assertion to impose on the listener. What calls the attention here is its distribution. The conjunction pero joins the preface (peripheral complement) to the nuclear sentence. The same happens when we insert a parenthetical utterance which introduces information that affects the whole propositional content of the utterance in which it is inserted. The coordinating conjunctions y, o relate the peripheral complement (with procedural meaning) to the propositional core. Therefore, a macrosyntactic approach is necessary to explain the relations between marginal components of the utterance. In this case, no es por nada pero…serves as an intensification of the sentence meaning, after having excluded in the preface a reason which may reduce its validity. (22) Aquí, en primer lugar dy eso hay que reconocerlod, ha habido una importante, importante disminuci on de recursos destinados por el Gobierno de la Naci on a la atenci on de las personas con necesidades sociales, y eso es un hecho (DSPA nº12, IX legislatura (2012), p agina 73. IU Los Verdes, Sr. Baena Cobos) [Here, in the first place - and this must be recognized - there has been a significant, significant decrease in resources allocated by the Government of the Nation to the protection of people with social needs, and that is a fact] C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 243 No es por nada is clearly enunciative (metadiscursive). The speaker is anti-oriented towards criticism and uses pero to present the argument that legitimizes the disagreement as well as reinforces it. This is a polyphonic marker. The interpretation would be: “I am looking at comment 1 not for any special reason and opposite to what you suppose.”This is followed by refutative argumentation. If we check on Corpes, we can find the same speech acts that we have seen above: complaints, objections, recriminations, among others (23,24). Even an advice or a recommendation (25): (23) No es por nada, pero me hab eis dejado solo. (Corpes, Despeyroux, Denise: Bienvenido a Girasol. Montevideo: dramaturgiauruguaya.gub.uy, 2007.) [Not for nothing, but you left me alone] (24) Mire, se~ nor Miravet, No es por nada, pero hace cuatro meses que trabajo para usted y ni siquiera se ha tomado la molestia de venir a conocerme. (Corpes, B.Mars e: «Te llamar e». En jaque. Barcelona: Anagrama, 2006). [Look, Mr Miravet, not for nothing, but I've been working for you for 4 months and you haven't even bothered to get to come see me.] (25) “Fumas mucho otra vez -observa Carmela-. No es por nada, pero deberías rebajar la dosis.  Esa, que me he fijado, es ya la segunda cajetilla. Y tienes una tos que no me gusta.”(Corpes, L.Ortiz: Las manos de Vel azquez. Madrid: Planeta, 2006). [You are again smoking too much esays Carmela-. Not for nothing, but you should lower the amount. That one, that I've seen, is already the second packet. And I don't like the sound of your cough.] In the following example (26), no es por nada goes after a negative segment (a recrimination) and precedes a deontic construction (obligation). (26) (…) hermano, miren, no es por nada, pero hay que ser valiente, muy valiente, hermano mío, y humilde, humilde, humilde, como decía Barba Jacob, (Corpes, J.L.Díaz-Granados: Los a~ nos extraviados. Bogot a: Planeta Colombiana, 2006.) [(…) brother, look, Not for nothing, but we need to stay brave, very brave, my brother, and humble, humble, humble, as Barba Jacob used to say.] No es por nada is the equivalent to “I do not mean it with any intention”. This reinforces the assertion because it denies that there are reasons for the speaker to enunciate it: “the speaker is honest”. The fact that it is not mentioned makes what has actually been said, stronger, allowing it to appear along with other speech acts that are not intended to destroy the face of the addressee. Then no es por nada goes from the mitigation function of impolite acts to the enunciative function of assertion reinforcement. At Crea, we find it with statements that express positive emotions. (27) Y no es por nada, pero no me parece que est e bien. (Crea, M.Signes: Antonio Ramos, 1963. Diputaci on de Salamanca, 1977) [And not for nothing, but it just doesn't seem right to me.] It is a preface before saying something personal or important, a framework that gives way to the main speech act. It keeps operating in the enunciative area, 7 now with a broader content that precedes the information considered relevant and therefore is now focalized. (28) No es por nada, pero ¿soy el único que tiene hambre? -se quej o Gepec e, rompiendo el clima de misterio e incertidumbre-. En todo el día s olo he comido las raíces cocidas que nos ha dado el gorila, y, francamente, tampoco es que fueran un banquete, ¿eh? (Crea, J.A.Martín Pi~ nol: Los dragones de hierro. Madrid: Alfaguara, 2010). [Not for nothing, but am I the only one who is hungry? -Gepec e complained, tearing up the atmosphere of mystery and uncertainty-. All day I have only eaten boiled roots that the gorilla has given me, and frankly, it's not like they were a banquet, ok?] In such a manner we find that [No es por nada,pero þsentence] extends to most of the speech acts. It goes from indicating, “I'm just saying, there is no reason behind what I'm saying and therefore you should not take it as an impolite act”to meaning “I focus the information that follows, I express my implication and therefore I intensify the content.” This generalization process covers both the lexical and the syntactic levels: a) meaning generalization: 1) no es por [lit. It is not for] þadressee's reasons /2) no es por þnada [lit. nothing] (generalization), complete rejection /3) it moves to the positive, to the pragmatic function of intensifying the utterance. b) syntactic change, as we can see in the following section: initially it was a peripheral complement attached to the clause by pero, but it later became an autonomous element with an independent function, mobility in the utterance and abstract meaning. It acts as a discursive operator (Fuentes-Rodríguez, 2003), no longer linked to the predicative structure, not even as a peripheral complement (comment clause in Brinton, 2008). Therefore, we can assert that the construction [No es por nada (enunciative peripheral complement) þpero þsentence], as a semifixed structure has been deriving in a later stage to the next [No es por nada (enunciative operator) þpero þsentence]. The construction has developed in the grammaticalization of no es por nada as a discourse operator. The operator is a pragmatic marker (Fraser,1990,1996) with procedural meaning that acts in the utterance (frequently as a peripheral element), without verbal function nor designative meaning (see Fuentes-Rodríguez, 2009). This procedural meaning can be oriented towards the indication of metadiscursive content, which could be the intention of the speaker (as frankly), modality (of course), argumentation (even) or focalization (just). It is a procedural device since it provides instructions to the listener to guide his/her interpretation (Wilson, 2016). In the expression under study, no es por nada provides information about the act of saying or the communication intention of the speaker. It's meaning is equivalent to 7 The speaker's marks in his/her speech may show his/her subjective attitude towards what is said (modality) or his/her communicative intention when emitting the message (enunciation). Both are included in the metadiscourse. Kaltenb€ ock et al. (2011) call these theticals. C. Fuentes Rodríguez Journal of Pragmatics 186 (2021) 236e250 244