Blending is creative, but blendedness is not — a response to Mark Turner
-
Thomas Herbst
Thomas Herbst is Full Professor and Chair of English Linguistics at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg. His research interests are valency theory, collocation studies, cognitive and constructionist theories of language, pedagogical construction grammar, and the linguistic aspects of film dubbing. He is one of the editors of the Valency Dictionary of English (2004) and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik and Lexicographica.
Abstract
This short response to Mark Turner’s article on “Construction and creativity” takes the idea of blending — which is at the centre of Turner’s argument — a step further and shows how it can be applied to syntactic analysis. Furthermore, it distinguishes between blendedness and blending, discussing the relevance of these concepts with respect to their relevance with respect to linguistic creativity.
About the author
Thomas Herbst is Full Professor and Chair of English Linguistics at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg. His research interests are valency theory, collocation studies, cognitive and constructionist theories of language, pedagogical construction grammar, and the linguistic aspects of film dubbing. He is one of the editors of the Valency Dictionary of English (2004) and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik and Lexicographica.
References
Bergs, Alexander. 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. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0025.Search in Google Scholar
Burgschmidt, Ernst & Dieter Götz. 1974. Kontrastive Linguistik. München: Hueber.Search in Google Scholar
Dokulil, Miloš. 1968. Zur Theorie der Wortbildungslehre. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, Gesellschafts-und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe 17. 203–211.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 1998/2006. Conceptual integration networks. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, 303–371. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691183954Search in Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2018. Collo-Creativity and blending: Recognizing creativity requires lexical storage in constructional slots. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0027.Search in Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2010. Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susanne Handl (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns, 225–255. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110216035.225Search in Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Thomas Hoffmann. 2018. Construction Grammar for students: A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA). In Beate Hampe & Susanne Flach (eds.), Corpora — Constructions — Cognition: Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 197–218. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/gcla-2018-0010Search in Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1958.tb00870.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2018. Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0024.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2014. Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions — Collocations — Patterns, 239–293. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110356854.239Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1999. Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, 129–162. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110803464.129Search in Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark, 2018. The role of creativity in Multimodal Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0030.Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 2020. Constructions and creativity. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2019.Search in Google Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 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. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0026.Search in Google Scholar
Corpus acronyms
OED: Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com.Search in Google Scholar
BNC: The British National Corpus. Distributed by Oxford University Press Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.Search in Google Scholar
COCA: Davies, Mark. 2008–2020. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 611 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Accessed January 2020.Search in Google Scholar
COHA: The Corpus of Historical American English.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Articles
- Construction grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology, and cognitive science
- Constructions and creativity
- Blending is creative, but blendedness is not — a response to Mark Turner
- Creativity, reuse, and regularity in music and language
- Are changes transmitted mistakes?
- Learning formulaic creativity: Chunking in verbal art and speech
- Learning formulaic creativity: Chunking in verbal art and speech – a response to Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas
- Creativity within and outside the linguistic system
- Playing by/with the rules: Creativity in language, games, and art
- Creative intentions — The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’
- Speakers are creative, within limits — a response to Peter Uhrig
- Coda: Creativity in psychological research versus in linguistics – Same but different?
- Coda: Literature, language, and creativity
Articles in the same Issue
- Articles
- Construction grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology, and cognitive science
- Constructions and creativity
- Blending is creative, but blendedness is not — a response to Mark Turner
- Creativity, reuse, and regularity in music and language
- Are changes transmitted mistakes?
- Learning formulaic creativity: Chunking in verbal art and speech
- Learning formulaic creativity: Chunking in verbal art and speech – a response to Cristóbal Pagán Cánovas
- Creativity within and outside the linguistic system
- Playing by/with the rules: Creativity in language, games, and art
- Creative intentions — The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’
- Speakers are creative, within limits — a response to Peter Uhrig
- Coda: Creativity in psychological research versus in linguistics – Same but different?
- Coda: Literature, language, and creativity
