Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First ArticlesVete a freír cristales
The interplay of convention and innovation in a constructional idiom of rejection in Spanish
The constructional idiom [IRSE/ANDAR(SE)[imperative]
a CLAUSE[infinitive]] (e.g., Vete a freír espárragos, lit. ‘go to fry asparagus’; Iros a tomar viento, lit. ‘go to get wind’) is commonly used in Spanish to convey the speaker’s strong rejection, and is a hallmark of colloquial language. This makes it an excellent candidate for exploring the phenomenon of extravagance, both because of these characteristics and its structure, which includes an empty slot filled with a clause headed by an infinitive. This structural aspect contributes to variability, as its high token frequency also results in high type frequency. The corpus analysis (Sketch Engine) presented in this paper allows us to illustrate the relationship between creativity and intensification, as well as between innovation and convention. Besides, it underscores the gradual nature of creativity, culminating in extravagance, which speakers employ to gain salience and, in turn, amplify the expressiveness and emotional impact of their statements.
Keywords: constructional idiom, extravagance, creativity, salience, rejection, pragmatics
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Extravagance and its relation to salience and creativity
- 3.Case study
- 3.1[IRSE/ANDAR(SE) [imperative] a CLAUSE[infinitive]] as a constructional idiom
- 3.2Data extraction from the corpus and sample composition
- 3.3Description of the sample
- 3.4The extravagant potential of a construction of vehement rejection
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusions
- Notes
-
References -
Corpora
References (89)
Amigot Castillo, L. (2014). Las fórmulas rutinarias expresivas del alemán y del español: estudio teórico y análisis pragmático comparado [The routine expressive formulas of German and Spanish: theoretical study and comparative pragmatic analysis]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Avis, F. J. d’, & Finkbeiner, R. 2019. Was ist Expressivität? [What is expressivity?] In F. J. d’Avis & R. Finkbeiner (Eds.), Expressivität im Deutsch (pp. 1–22). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Aznárez-Mauleón, M. (2019). La fórmula de rechazo ¡Vete a …! en español peninsular. Una propuesta de análisis desde la Metalengua Semántica Natural (NSM) [The rejection formula ¡Vete a…! in Peninsular Spanish. A proposal for analysis from Natural Semantic Metalanguage]. Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics,
7
(3), 421–444. 

Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

Bergs, A. (2018). Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist (Picasso): Linguistic aberrancy from a constructional perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik,
66
(3), 277–293. 

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

(2013). Usage-Based Theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cappelle, B. (2020). Playing by/with the rules: Creativity in language, games, and art. Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue: Construction Grammar and Creativity, 13(1). 

Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

De Smet, H. (2016). How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change,
28
1, 83–102. 

(2018). Unwitting inventors: Speakers use -ly- adverbs more creatively when primed. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik,
66
(3), 329–340. 

(2020). Are changes transmitted mistakes? Cognitive Semiotics 1. Special Issue: Construction Grammar and Creativity,
13
(1).
De Wit, A., Petré, P., & Brisar, F. (2020). Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics,
56
1, 479–514. 

Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Díez Arroyo, M. (2002). Un ejemplo de estrategia retórica: La paradoja del lenguaje publicitario [An example of rhetorical strategy: The paradox of advertising language]. ELIA. Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada,
56
(3), 259–280.
Eitelmann, M., & Haumann, D. (2022). Extravagance in morphology. Introduction. In M. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp. 1–17). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2023). Construcciones exclamativas de rechazo [Exclamative constructions of rejection]. Spanish in Context,
20
(1), 178–207. 

Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology,
17
(1), 69–81. 

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2016). Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition,
8
1, 369–390. 

(2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gonzálvez-García, F. (In press). Capturing meaningful generalizations at varying degrees of resolution. The case of the family of ser muy de-PP constructions in present-day Spanish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics.
Günther, F., Müller, H. J., & Geyer, T. (2016). Salience, attention, and perception. In H. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we recognize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 289–312). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Hartmann, S., & Ungerer, T. (2023).
Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics, 1–36. 

Herbst, T. (2018). Collo-creativity and blending. Recognizing creativity requires lexical storage in constructional slots. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik,
66
(3), 309–338. 

Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Hoffmann, T. (2019). Language and creativity. A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistic Vanguard,
5
(1). 

(2022). Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association,
10
(1), 259–284. 

Hopper, P. J., & E. C. Traugott. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Ivorra Ordines, P. (2022). Comparative constructional idioms. A corpus-based study of the creativity of the [más feo que X] construction. In C. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and Construction Grammar. A multilingual approach (pp. 29–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
(2023).
Por mí como si te operas. Constructional idioms of rejection from a constructionist approach. Yearbook of Phraseology,
14
1, 89–120. 

(In press).
Dime con quién te juntas y te diré quién eres. Substantive patterns from Construction Grammar. In T. Leuschner, J. Barðdal, G. Delaby & A. Vajnovszki (Eds.), How to do things with corpora – Methodological issues and case studies. Berlin: Springer Nature.
Ivorra Ordines, P., & Mellado Blanco, C. (2021).
Más tontos que el novio de la Chelo. La intensificación de la estulticia en foros y chats por medio de comparaciones creativas: una aproximación desde la Gramática de Construcciones [Dumber than Chelo’s boyfriend. The intensification of dumbness in forums and chats through creative comparisons: an approach from Construction Grammar]. Estudios Románicos. Special Issue: La intensidad en las lenguas románicas como estrategia comunicativa,
30
1, 39–58. 

Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020). Relational morphology: A cousin of Construction Grammar. Frontiers in Psychology,
11
1, 2241. 

Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P. (2021). An overview of creativity theories. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: An introduction (pp. 17–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Standford: CSLI.
Kempf, L., & Hartmann, S. (2022). What’s extravagant about be-sandal-ed feet? Morphology, semantics and pragmatics of German pseudo-participles. In M. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp. 19–50). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press.
Larreta Zulategui, J. P. (2014). Fórmulas rutinarias de rechazo en español y sus equivalencias en alemán [Routine rejection formulas in Spanish and their equivalents in German]. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie,
130
(1), 134–159. 

Leclercq, B. (2019). Coercion. A case of saturation. Constructions and Frames,
11
(2), 270–289. 

Legallois, D. (2012). From grammaticalization to expressive constructions: the case of histoire de + inf. In M. Bouveret & D. Legallois (Eds.), Constructions in French (pp. 257–282). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Lensch, A. (2022).
Diggers-out, leaf clearer-uppers and stayer-onner-for-nowers. On creativity and extravagance in English -er nominalisations. In M. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology. Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp. 73–100). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

López Meirama, B. (2023).
¡Con lo felices que éramos! Otra mirada sobre la construcción [
con ART (X) que V] del español [We were so happy! Another perspective on the construction [con ART (X) que V] in Spanish]. Romanica Olomucensia,
35
(1), 89–106. 

Lubart, T., Glăveanu, V. P., de Vries, H., Camargo, A., & Storme, M. (2021). Cultural perspectives on creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: An introduction (pp. 128–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Mansilla Pérez, A. (2019). Schematisierung im Deutschen und im Spanischen: Das idiomatische Satzmuster [Du kannst mich + INF] aus konstruktionsgrammatischer Sicht [Schematization in German and Spanish: The idiomatic sentence pattern [Du kannst mich + INF] from a Construction Grammar perspective]. In I. Doval & E. Liste Lamas (Eds.), Germanistik im Umbruch – Linguistik, Übersetzung und DaF (pp. 105–115). Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Martí Sánchez, M. (2015). La búsqueda de sentido en la desautomatización fraseológica [The search for meaning in idiom modification]. In P. Mogorrón & F. A. Navarro (Eds.), Fraseología, didáctica y traducción (pp. 117–135). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Mellado Blanco, C. (2020a). Esquemas fraseológicos y construcciones fraseológicas en el contínuum léxico-gramática [Phraseological schemata and constructional idioms in the lexicon-grammar continuum]. In C. Sinner, E. Tabares & E. Montoro del Arco (Eds.), Clases y categorías en la fraseología española (pp. 13–36). Berlin: Peter Lang.
(2020b). La desautomatización desde el prisma de la Gramática de Construcciones [Idiom modification from a Construction Grammar viewpoint]. Nasledje,
45
1, 17–34.
(2020c). Sobre el insulto en español y alemán: el insulto con zoónimos [On the insult in Spanish and German: insults involving zoonyms]. In A. Corbacho & M. Campos Fernández-Fígares (Eds.), Nuevas reflexiones sobre la fraseología del insulto (pp. 169–196). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Mellado Blanco, C., & Ivorra Ordines, P. (2023).
Casi palmo de la risa. A corpus-based study of a Spanish constructional idiom with the causal preposition de
. In L. Sommerer & S. Hartmann (Eds.), Constructions +. Special Issue 35 years of Constructions, 1–34.
Michaelis, L. (2017). Meanings of constructions. Oxford Online Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 

Munat, J. (2016). Lexical creativity. In R. H. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 92–106). New York: Routledge.
Neels, J., Hartmann, S., & Ungerer, T. (2023).
A quantum of salience. Reconsidering the role of extravagance in grammaticalization. In P. Petré & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Context, intent and variation in grammaticalization (pp. 47–77). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Peña Cervel, M. S., & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez. (2017). Construing and constructing hyperbole. In A. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp. 42–73). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Petré, P. (2016). Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation. Micro-changess in the grammaticalization of [be going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics,
30
(1), 115–146. 

(2017). The extravagant progressive: An experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving]. English Language and Linguistics,
21
(2), 227–250. 

Rasulic, K. (2010).
Long Time, No Buzz: Fixed Expressions as Constructional Frames. CogniTextes. Revue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive. Special issue: Grammaire en Construction(s) 51. 

Real Academia Española (2005). Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (DPD). [URL]
(2014). Diccionario de la lengua española, 23.ª ed., [versión 23.6 en línea] (DLE). [URL] (accessed 10 October 2023).
Sampson, G. (2016). Two ideas of productivity. In M. Hinton (Ed.), Evidence, experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language (pp. 15–26). Bern: Peter Lang.
Sawada, S. (2000). The semantics of the ‘body part off’ construction. English Linguistics
17
(2), 361–385. 

Schmid, H. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Schmid, H. & F. Günther. (2016). Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology
7
1. 

Schneider, U. (2022).
They’re proing it up hardcore. An analysis of the V it up construction. In M. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp. 207–231). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Smith, K., Tamariz, M., & Kirby, S. (2013). Linguistic structure is an evolutionary trade-off between simplicity and expressivity. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Waschmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1348–1353). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
Sperber, D., & D. Wilson. (1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stenberg, R. J., & Lubarg, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Stenberg (Ed.), Handboook of creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stutz, L., & Finkbeiner, R. (2022).
Veni, vidi, veggie. A contrastive corpus linguistic analysis of the phraseological construction Veni, vidi, X and its German equivalent X kam, sah und Y
. In C. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and construction grammar. A multilingual approach (pp. 287–314). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Taylor, J. R. (2016). Cognitive linguistics. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp. 455–469). London: Routledge.
Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

Uhrig, P. (2018).
I don’t want to go all Yoko Ono on you. Creativity and variation in a family of constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik,
66
(3), 295–308. 

(2020). Creative intentions – The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’. Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue Construction Grammar and Creativity,
13
(1). 

Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2020). Delineating extravagance: Assessing speakers’ perceptions of imaginative constructional patterns. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. Special Issue: The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research,
34
1, 345–356. 

Van Wettere, N. (2021). Productivity of French and Dutch (semi-)copular constructions and the adverse impact of high token frequency. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
26
(3), 396–428. 

Veale, T. (2012). Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury.
Real Academia Española: Banco de datos [online]. Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI (CORPES). 〈[URL]〉
Sketch Engine Spanish Web corpus 2018 (esTenTen18) EU+AM: Sketch Engine: Corpus Query System, 〈[URL]〉
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.