Creative intentions — The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’
-
Peter Uhrig
Peter Uhrig is currently interim Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Leipzig. For the duration of this stint, he is on leave from his position as a post-doctoral researcher at FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg. His current research project on large-scale multimodal corpus linguistics aims at creating new methods for research on multimodal communication by integrating insights and tools from corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, speech recognition, and computer vision. 
Abstract
The distinction between creative language use and linguistic errors is not always straightforward. Even less clear is what factors play a role in the attribution of a positive evaluation (= creative) or a negative one (= error). In this paper, it is argued that a Construction Grammar approach can model the difference based on two basic mechanisms: Frequency effects (either modelled as preemption or as negative entrenchment) and hearer expectations, which are continuously updated and based on a wide range of linguistic and contextual factors such as dialect and speech situation, influencing the perception of the abilities and intentions of the speaker.
About the author
Peter Uhrig is currently interim Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Leipzig. For the duration of this stint, he is on leave from his position as a post-doctoral researcher at FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg. His current research project on large-scale multimodal corpus linguistics aims at creating new methods for research on multimodal communication by integrating insights and tools from corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, speech recognition, and computer vision.
References
Aronoff, Mark, 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
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.https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0025Search in Google Scholar
Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of language learning and teaching, 4th edn. White Plains: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1952/1975. System, Norm und Rede. In Eugenio Coseriu (ed.), Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 11–101. München: Fink.Search in Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Cropley, David H. & Arthur J. Cropley. 2013. Creativity and crime: A psychological analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139176118Search in Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3). 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab.10.1075/lab.2.3.01dabSearch in Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Ewa Sweetser (eds.). 2012. Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084727Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 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. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691183954Search in Google Scholar
Hennessey, Beth A. & Amabile, Teresa M. 2010. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 61, 569–598.10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416Search in Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 1988. A valency model for nouns in English. Journal of Linguistics 44 (2), 265–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011804.Search 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
Katamba, Francis & John Stonham. 2006. Morphology, 2nd edn. London: Red Globe Press.10.1007/978-1-137-11131-9Search in Google Scholar
Kaufman, James C. 2016. Creativity 101, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.10.1891/9780826129536Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffre. 1981. Semantics. 2nd edn. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar
Salcedo-Albarán, Eduardo, Andrea Marie Kuszewski, Isaac de León-Beltrán & Luis Jorge Garay. 2009. Rule-breaking from creativity to illegality: A trans-disciplinary inquiry. METODO Working Papers No. 63. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1528842 (accessed 23 January 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2007. Grammar without grammaticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3 (1). 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2007.001.Search in Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2016. Two ideas of creativity. In Martin Hinton (ed.), Evidence, experiment, and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language, 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Simonton, Dean Keith. 2012. Creative productivity and aging. In Susan K. Whitbourne and Martin J. Sliwinski (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of adulthood and aging, 477–496. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118392966.ch24Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2008. Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3). 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.020.10.1515/COGL.2008.020Search in Google Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J. James, C. Kaufman & Jean, E. Pretz. 2002. The creativity conundrum. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.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
Woolley, Edwin C. 1907. Handbook of composition. Boston, New York, and Chicago: D. C. Heath and Co.Search in Google Scholar
Corpora
BNC: The British National Corpus, version 3. 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.Search in Google Scholar
COCA: The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words 1990-present. 2008–. published by M. Davies, available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Search in Google Scholar
Primary texts
Simon, David & George Pelecanos. 2004. Duck and cover. The Wire, season 2. Dan Attias, dir. Home Box Office. DVD.Search in Google Scholar
Tuten, Frederic. 2019. My young life: A memoir. New York, London, Toronto, Sidney, and New Delhi: Simon and Schuster.Search in Google Scholar
Wolff, Maritta. 1941. Whistle stop. New York: Random House.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
