Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Vete a freír cristales

The interplay of convention and innovation in a constructional idiom of rejection in Spanish

ORCID logo | KU Eichstätt-Ingolstadt
ORCID logo | Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

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
Published online: 27 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00176.ivo
References
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) What, if anything, is linguistic creativity? Gestalt theory, 41 (2), 173–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society, 34 1, 421–435.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2020) Playing by/with the rules: Creativity in language, games, and art. Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue: Construction Grammar and Creativity, 13(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D.
(2006) Language and the Internet. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2016) How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change, 28 1, 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Unwitting inventors: Speakers use -ly- adverbs more creatively when primed. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66 (3), 329–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Are changes transmitted mistakes? Cognitive Semiotics 1. Special Issue: Construction Grammar and Creativity, 13 (1).Google Scholar
De Wit, A., Petré, P., & Brisar, F.
(2020) Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics, 56 1, 479–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2019) The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(2002) Idiomaticity. Lectures notes from the spring 2002.Google Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, C.
(2023) Construcciones exclamativas de rechazo [Exclamative constructions of rejection]. Spanish in Context, 20 (1), 178–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glăveanu, V. P.
(2013) Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17 (1), 69–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8 1, 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S., & Ungerer, T.
(2023)  Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics, 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1999) Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37 (6), 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T.
(2018) Collo-creativity and blending. Recognizing creativity requires lexical storage in constructional slots. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66 (3), 309–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T.
(2019) Language and creativity. A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistic Vanguard, 5 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 10 (1), 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & E. C. Traugott
(2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 GruyterGoogle Scholar
(2023)  Por mí como si te operas. Constructional idioms of rejection from a constructionist approach. Yearbook of Phraseology, 14 1, 89–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
(2020) Relational morphology: A cousin of Construction Grammar. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 1, 2241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi
(1994) On language change. The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leclercq, B.
(2019) Coercion. A case of saturation. Constructions and Frames, 11 (2), 270–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2020b) La desautomatización desde el prisma de la Gramática de Construcciones [Idiom modification from a Construction Grammar viewpoint]. Nasledje, 45 1, 17–34.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.
(2017) Meanings of constructions. Oxford Online Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. D.
(2014) Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munat, J.
(2016) Lexical creativity. In R. H. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp. 92–106). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The extravagant progressive: An experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving]. English Language and Linguistics, 21 (2), 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sawada, S.
(2000) The semantics of the ‘body part off’ construction. English Linguistics 17 (2), 361–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.
(2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. & F. Günther
(2016) Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology 7 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & D. Wilson
(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2016) Cognitive linguistics. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp. 455–469). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Creative intentions – The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’. Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue Construction Grammar and Creativity, 13 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veale, T.
(2012) Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Weiss, S., & Wilhelm, O.
(2020) Coda: Creativity in psychological research versus in linguistics – Same but different? Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue Construction Grammar and Creativity, 13 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeschel, A.
(2012) Incipient productivity: A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar

Corpora

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]〉