Cover not available

In:The Interpersonal Level in Functional Discourse Grammar
Edited by Monielly Serafim, Matthias Mittendorfer and Kees Hengeveld
[Studies in Language Companion Series 241] 2027
► pp. 254–284

Not for nothing

From justification to politeness. A Functional Discourse Grammar analysis

 | Universidad de Córdoba
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This article investigates the discourse functions of not for nothing and not for nothing(,) but within the framework of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG). Using corpus-based evidence, it shows that these expressions perform distinct interpersonal functions in the strategic design of Discourse Acts. Not for nothing provides evidential justification for a prior claim, while not for nothing(,) but functions as a politeness strategy that mitigates face‑threatening acts. The analysis demonstrates that these uses can be modeled through existing and proposed distinctions at the Interpersonal Level, particularly rhetorical macro- and micro-functions. The findings support the adequacy and descriptive strength of FDG in capturing fine-grained pragmatic meaning in discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Earlier studies
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Analysis and findings
    • 4.1Not for nothing
      • 4.1.1Formal properties
      • 4.1.2Function
    • 4.2Not for nothing(,) but
      • 4.2.1Formal properties
      • 4.2.2Function
  • 5.An FDG analysis of not for nothing and not for nothing(,) but
    • 5.1The Interpersonal Level in FDG
    • 5.2Not for nothing (and its variants)
      • 5.2.1It is not for nothing that / Not for nothing
      • 5.2.2And not for nothing
    • 5.3Not for nothing(,) but
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • References
References (31)
References
Baker, Charlotte. 1975. “This is Just a First Approximation, but....” In Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, edited by Robin E. Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J. Vance, 37–47. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cantarutti, Marina N. 2023. “Comma Intonation.” In Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, edited by Alexandra Gubina, and Chase Wesley Raymond. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 1990–Present. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 Million Words. Brigham Young University. [URL]
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Functional Grammar Series, 20. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Functional Grammar Series, 21. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edmondson, Willis. 1981. Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis. New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia. 2020a. “Empirical Research on Mitigation in English and Spanish.” In Linguistic Mitigation in English and Spanish: How Speakers Attenuate Expressions, edited by Nydia Flores-Ferrán, 1–24. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020b. “Detecting Mitigating Devices and Strategies.” In Linguistic Mitigation in English and Spanish: How speakers attenuate expressions, edited by Nydia Flores-Ferrán, 25–50. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1980. “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 4(4): 341–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuentes-Rodríguez, Catalina. 2021. “No es por nada: Spanish Argumentative Preface and Discourse Operator.” Journal of Pragmatics 186: 236–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giomi, Ricardo & Evelien Keizer. 2020. “Extra-clausal Constituents in Functional Discourse Grammar: Function and Form.” Revista da Abralin 19(3): 159–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Negation in Functional Discourse Grammar.” In Recent Developments in Functional Discourse Grammar, edited by Evelien Keizer and Hella Olbertz, 17–45. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, Evelien Keizer & Riccardo Giomi. (In prep). The Oxford Reference Guide to Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, Janet. 1984. “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics 8: 345–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. “Negation.” The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 785–850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jansen, Henrike & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2020. “Argumentative Use and Strategic Function of the Expression ‘Not for Nothing’.” Argumentation 34: 143–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 2004–2025. Sketch Engine: Corpus Query System. Lexical Computing Ltd. [URL]
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. “If’s, and’s, and but’s about Conjunction.” In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, edited by Charles J. Fillmore, and D. Terence Langendoen, 114–149. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972. “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 8: 183–228.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lanero-Rodríguez, Carmen. 2018. “Argumentación y atenuación en construcciones del tipo No es por X, pero Y [Argumentation and atenuation in constructions of the type No es por X, pero Y].” Clac 75: 45–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauerbach, Gerda. 1989. “We don’t want war, but…, Speech Act Schemata and Inter-Schema-Inference Transfer.” Journal of Pragmatics 13: 25–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schellens, Peter Johannes. 1985. Redelijke argumenten. Een onderzoek naar normen voor kritische lezers. Dissertatie Universiteit Utrecht. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2004. “On the Notion of Contrast in Information Structure and Discourse Structure.” Journal of Semantics 21(2): 155–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. 1977. Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. “Pragmatic Connectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 3(5): 447–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue