1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Vete a freír cristales
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The constructional idiom [() CLAUSE] (e.g., , lit. ‘go to fry asparagus’; , 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.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00176.ivo
2024-02-27
2024-10-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00176.ivo
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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.
  2. Avis, F. J. d’, & Finkbeiner, R.
    2019 Was ist Expressivität? [What is expressivity?] InF. J. d’Avis & R. Finkbeiner (Eds.), Expressivität im Deutsch (pp.–). Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 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, (), –. 10.1515/soprag‑2019‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2019-0008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  5. 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, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2018‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0025 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2019) What, if anything, is linguistic creativity?Gestalt theory, (), –. 10.2478/gth‑2019‑0017
     https://doi.org/10.2478/gth-2019-0017 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J. L.
    (1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) Usage-Based Theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, B.
    (2020) Playing by/with the rules: Creativity in language, games, and art. Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue: Construction Grammar and Creativity, (). 10.1515/cogsem‑2020‑2026
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2026 [Google Scholar]
  11. Croft, W.
    (2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, W., & Cruse, A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crystal, D.
    (2006) Language and the Internet. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511487002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487002 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Smet, H.
    (2016) How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change, , –. 10.1017/S0954394515000186
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2018) Unwitting inventors: Speakers use -ly- adverbs more creatively when primed. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2018‑0028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0028 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2020) Are changes transmitted mistakes? Cognitive Semiotics 1. Special Issue: Construction Grammar and Creativity, ().
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Wit, A., Petré, P., & Brisar, F.
    (2020) Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1017/S0022226719000501
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226719000501 [Google Scholar]
  18. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Eitelmann, M., & Haumann, D.
    (2022) Extravagance in morphology. Introduction. InM. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.223.01eit
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.01eit [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore, C. J.
    (2002) Idiomaticity. Lectures notes from the spring 2002.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fuentes Rodríguez, C.
    (2023) Construcciones exclamativas de rechazo [Exclamative constructions of rejection]. Spanish in Context, (), –. 10.1075/sic.21026.rod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.21026.rod [Google Scholar]
  23. Glăveanu, V. P.
    (2013) Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/a0029528
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029528 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, , –. 10.1017/langcog.2016.17
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.17 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Günther, F., Müller, H. J., & Geyer, T.
    (2016) Salience, attention, and perception. InH. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we recognize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.–). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hartmann, S., & Ungerer, T.
    (2023) Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics, –. 10.1017/S0022226723000117
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000117 [Google Scholar]
  30. Haspelmath, M.
    (1999) Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
  31. Herbst, T.
    (2018) Collo-creativity and blending. Recognizing creativity requires lexical storage in constructional slots. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2018‑0027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0027 [Google Scholar]
  32. Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite orthogonal?InW. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and fringes (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hoffmann, T.
    (2019) Language and creativity. A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistic Vanguard, (). 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0019 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2022) Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, (), –. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0012 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hopper, P. J., & E. C. Traugott
    (2003) Grammaticalization. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ivorra Ordines, P.
    (2022) Comparative constructional idioms. A corpus-based study of the creativity of the [más feo que X] construction. InC. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and Construction Grammar. A multilingual approach (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  37. (2023) Por mí como si te operas. Constructional idioms of rejection from a constructionist approach. Yearbook of Phraseology, , –. 10.1515/phras‑2023‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/phras-2023-0005 [Google Scholar]
  38. (In press). Dime con quién te juntas y te diré quién eres. Substantive patterns from Construction Grammar. InT. Leuschner, J. Barðdal, G. Delaby & A. Vajnovszki Eds. How to do things with corpora – Methodological issues and case studies. Berlin: Springer Nature.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 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, , –. 10.6018/ER.471241
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ER.471241 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
    (2020) Relational morphology: A cousin of Construction Grammar. Frontiers in Psychology, , . 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02241
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02241 [Google Scholar]
  41. Keller, Rudi
    (1994) On language change. The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kaufman, J. C., & Glăveanu, V. P.
    (2021) An overview of creativity theories. InJ. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: An introduction (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108776721.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776721.003 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M.
    (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.–). Standford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kempf, L., & Hartmann, S.
    (2022) What’s extravagant about be-sandal-ed feet? Morphology, semantics and pragmatics of German pseudo-participles. InM. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.223.02kem
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.02kem [Google Scholar]
  45. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 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, (), –. 10.1515/zrp‑2014‑0007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2014-0007 [Google Scholar]
  47. Leclercq, B.
    (2019) Coercion. A case of saturation. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00031.lec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00031.lec [Google Scholar]
  48. Leech, G. N.
    (1969) A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Legallois, D.
    (2012) From grammaticalization to expressive constructions: the case of histoire de + inf. InM. Bouveret & D. Legallois (Eds.), Constructions in French (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.13.14leg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.13.14leg [Google Scholar]
  50. Lensch, A.
    (2022) Diggers-out, leaf clearer-uppers and stayer-onner-for-nowers. On creativity and extravagance in English -er nominalisations. InM. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology. Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.223.04len
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.04len [Google Scholar]
  51. 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, (), –. 10.5507/ro.2023.007
     https://doi.org/10.5507/ro.2023.007 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lubart, T., Glăveanu, V. P., de Vries, H., Camargo, A., & Storme, M.
    (2021) Cultural perspectives on creativity. InJ. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Creativity: An introduction (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108776721.009
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776721.009 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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]. InI. Doval & E. Liste Lamas (Eds.), Germanistik im Umbruch – Linguistik, Übersetzung und DaF (pp.–). Berlin: Frank & Timme.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Martí Sánchez, M.
    (2015) La búsqueda de sentido en la desautomatización fraseológica [The search for meaning in idiom modification]. InP. Mogorrón & F. A. Navarro (Eds.), Fraseología, didáctica y traducción (pp.–). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Mellado Blanco, C.
    (2020a) Esquemas fraseológicos y construcciones fraseológicas en el contínuum léxico-gramática [Phraseological schemata and constructional idioms in the lexicon-grammar continuum]. InC. Sinner, E. Tabares & E. Montoro del Arco (Eds.), Clases y categorías en la fraseología española (pp.–). Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2020b) La desautomatización desde el prisma de la Gramática de Construcciones [Idiom modification from a Construction Grammar viewpoint]. Nasledje, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (2020c) Sobre el insulto en español y alemán: el insulto con zoónimos [On the insult in Spanish and German: insults involving zoonyms]. InA. Corbacho & M. Campos Fernández-Fígares (Eds.), Nuevas reflexiones sobre la fraseología del insulto (pp.–). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 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. InL. Sommerer & S. Hartmann (Eds.), Constructions +. Special Issue 35 years of Constructions, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Michaelis, L.
    (2017) Meanings of constructions. Oxford Online Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.309
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.309 [Google Scholar]
  60. Miller, G. D.
    (2014) Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689880.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689880.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  61. Munat, J.
    (2016) Lexical creativity. InR. H. Jones (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and creativity (pp.–). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Neels, J., Hartmann, S., & Ungerer, T.
    (2023) A quantum of salience. Reconsidering the role of extravagance in grammaticalization. InP. Petré & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Context, intent and variation in grammaticalization (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110753059‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110753059-003 [Google Scholar]
  63. Peña Cervel, M. S., & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
    (2017) Construing and constructing hyperbole. InA. Athanasiadou (Ed.), Studies in figurative thought and language (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.56.02pen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.02pen [Google Scholar]
  64. 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, (), –. 10.1075/bjl.30.06pet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet [Google Scholar]
  65. (2017) The extravagant progressive: An experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving]. English Language and Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S1360674317000107
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000107 [Google Scholar]
  66. 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). 10.4000/cognitextes.356
     https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.356 [Google Scholar]
  67. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2005) Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (DPD). https://www.rae.es/dpd/
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2014) Diccionario de la lengua española, 23.ª ed., [versión 23.6 en línea] (DLE). https://dle.rae.es (accessed10 October 2023).
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Sampson, G.
    (2016) Two ideas of productivity. InM. Hinton (Ed.), Evidence, experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language (pp.–). Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Sawada, S.
    (2000) The semantics of the ‘body part off’ construction. English Linguistics(), –. 10.9793/elsj1984.17.361
     https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.17.361 [Google Scholar]
  71. Schmid, H.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  72. Schmid, H. & F. Günther
    (2016) Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110 [Google Scholar]
  73. Schneider, U.
    (2022) They’re proing it up hardcore. An analysis of the V it up construction. InM. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.223.09sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.09sch [Google Scholar]
  74. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Smith, K., Tamariz, M., & Kirby, S.
    (2013) Linguistic structure is an evolutionary trade-off between simplicity and expressivity. InM. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Waschmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.–). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Sperber, D., & D. Wilson
    (1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Stenberg, R. J., & Lubarg, T. I.
    (1999) The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. InR. J. Stenberg (Ed.), Handboook of creativity (pp.–). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 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. InC. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and construction grammar. A multilingual approach (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Taylor, J. R.
    (2016) Cognitive linguistics. InK. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics (pp.–). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Traugott, E. C.
    (2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. InR. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110205398.3.219
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205398.3.219 [Google Scholar]
  81. 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, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2018‑0026
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0026 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2020) Creative intentions – The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’. Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue Construction Grammar and Creativity, (). 10.1515/cogsem‑2020‑2027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2027 [Google Scholar]
  83. 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, , –. 10.1075/bjl.00058.ung
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00058.ung [Google Scholar]
  84. 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, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.19043.van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19043.van [Google Scholar]
  85. Veale, T.
    (2012) Exploding the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Weiss, S., & Wilhelm, O.
    (2020) Coda: Creativity in psychological research versus in linguistics – Same but different?Cognitive Semiotics. Special Issue Construction Grammar and Creativity, (). 10.1515/cogsem‑2020‑2029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2029 [Google Scholar]
  87. Zeschel, A.
    (2012) Incipient productivity: A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110274844
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274844 [Google Scholar]
  88. Real Academia Española: Banco de datos [online]
    Real Academia Española: Banco de datos [online]. Corpus del Español del Siglo XXI (CORPES). 〈www.rae.es〉
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Sketch Engine Spanish Web corpus 2018 (esTenTen18) EU+AM: Sketch Engine: Corpus Query System
    Sketch Engine Spanish Web corpus 2018 (esTenTen18) EU+AM: Sketch Engine: Corpus Query System, 〈www.sketchengine.co.uk〉
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00176.ivo
Loading
Vete a freír cristales
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00176.ivo
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00176.ivo
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00176.ivo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: extravagance ; constructional idiom ; pragmatics ; salience ; rejection ; creativity

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error