Speakers are creative, within limits — a response to Peter Uhrig
-
Thomas Hoffmann
Thomas Hoffmann is Professor and Chair of English Language and Linguistics at the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. His main research interests are usage-based Construction Grammar, language variation and change, and multimodal communication. He is currently writing a textbook on Construction Grammar: The Structure of English for the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics series.
Abstract
In his contribution to the present volume, Uhrig (2020. Cognitive Semiotics 13, 1) focusses on an interesting question: When is a novel utterance considered “creative” and when is it seen as “wrong?” As I will show, Uhrig offers many important answers to this question. At the same time, I argue 1) that deliberateness is not (always) important for linguistic creativity; 2) that appropriateness requires a closer look; and 3) that frequency does not (always) play the most important role.
About the author
Thomas Hoffmann is Professor and Chair of English Language and Linguistics at the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. His main research interests are usage-based Construction Grammar, language variation and change, and multimodal communication. He is currently writing a textbook on Construction Grammar: The Structure of English for the Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics series.
References
Adamson, Sylvia. 1994. From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de-)subjectivisation as processes of language change. Transactions of the Philological Society 92. 55–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010.Search in Google Scholar
Esser, Jürgen. 1993. English linguistics stylistics. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Search 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
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
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2020. Construction Grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology, and cognitive science. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2018.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Katherine. 2012. “How very dare you!” Shame, insult and contemporary representations of queer subjectivities. Subjectivity D 5(4). 416–437. https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2012.8.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1969. A linguistic guide to English poetry. London and New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 2012. The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language and literature. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser, (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 177–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084727.014Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press, Oxford.10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Simonton, D.K. 2012. Creative productivity and aging. In: Susan Whitbourne, K., Martin Sliwinski, J. (Eds.), The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of adulthood and aging. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp. 477–496.10.1002/9781118392966.ch24Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., Trousdale, G. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press, Oxford.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In: Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., Gildea, S. (Eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 51–79. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, New York.10.1075/cal.18.02traSearch in Google Scholar
Turner, M. 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 & Gilles Fauconnier. 1999. A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today 20(3). 397–418.Search in Google Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2020. Creative intentions – the fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2027.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
