Constructionist approaches to creativity

References

Adger, David. 2019. Language unlimited: The science behind our most creative power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Andrén, Mats. 2010. Children’s gestures from 18 to 30 months. Lund: Lund University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Audring, Jenny. 2019. Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure 12(3). 274–296.10.3366/word.2019.0150Search in Google Scholar

Auer, Peter & Stefan Pfänder. 2011. Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (Linguae et Litterae Bd. 6), 1–21. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110229080.1Search in Google Scholar

Bauer, Eva-Maria & Thomas Hoffmann. 2020. Turns out is not ellipsis: A usage-based construction grammar view on reduced constructions. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(2). 240–259.10.1080/03740463.2020.1777036Search in Google Scholar

Benedek, Mathias, Emanuel Jauk, Markus Sommer, Martin Arendasy & Aljoscha C. Neubauer. 2014. Intelligence, creativity, and cognitive control: The common and differential involvement of executive functions in intelligence and creativity. Intelligence 46. 73–83.10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.007Search 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). 277–293.10.1515/zaa-2018-0025Search in Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander & Nikola Anna Kompa. 2020. Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). No 20202025.10.1515/cogsem-2020-2025Search in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2021. Construction grammar and frame semantics. In Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 43–77. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351034708-5Search in Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0014Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004Search in Google Scholar

Cienki, Alan. 2015. Spoken language usage events. Language and Cognition 7. 499–514.10.1017/langcog.2015.20Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Andy & David J. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58. 7–19.10.1093/analys/58.1.7Search in Google Scholar

Cowan, Nelson. 2008. What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research 169. 323–33.10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William & Alan. D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Search in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012 Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2. 219–253.10.1075/lab.2.3.01dabSearch in Google Scholar

Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the human brain. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Diamond, Adele. 2013. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology 64. 135–168.10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108671040Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Glăveanu, Vlad P. 2013. Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology 17(1). 69–81.10.1037/a0029528Search in Google Scholar

Glăveanu, Vlad P. & James C. Kaufman. 2021. Creativity: A historical perspective. In James C. Kaufman & Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Creativity: An introduction, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108776721.002Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–24.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9Search 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. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctvc772nnSearch in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Elkhonon. 2018. Creativity: The human brain in the age of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hampe, Beate. 2022. Between embodiment and usage: Conventionalized figurative expressions and the notion of ‘idiom set’. In Herbert Colston, Teenie Matlock & Gerard Steen (eds.), Dynamism in metaphor and beyond, 157–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/milcc.9.09hamSearch in Google Scholar

Hampe, Beate & Doris Schönefeld. 2003. Creative syntax: Iconic principles within the symbolic. In Wolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds.), From sign to signing, 243–261. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/ill.3.18hamSearch in Google Scholar

Harari, Yuval Noah. 2014. Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. London: Harvill Secker.Search 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). 309–328.10.1515/zaa-2018-0027Search 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 [Special issue]. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6(1). 197–218.10.1515/gcla-2018-0010Search in Google Scholar

Herbst, Thomas & Thomas Hoffmann. fc. A construction grammar of English: A constructionist approach to syntactic analysis (CASA).Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2018. Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar, 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.21.c2Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction grammar and its application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474433624Search in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack & Donna J. Napoli. 2008. Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics 44(2). 347–378.10.1017/S002222670800515XSearch in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017a. From constructions to construction grammars. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 284–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316339732.019Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017b. Construction grammars. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 310–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316339732.020Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017c. Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of Constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1). 1–10.10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2018a. Creativity and construction grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. [Special issue: Linguistic creativity]. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 259–276.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas (ed.). 2018b. Construction grammar and creativity. [Special issue]. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3).10.1515/zaa-2018-0024Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2019. Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard 5(1). 1–8.10.1515/lingvan-2019-0019Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2020. Construction grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology and cognitive science. [Special issue]. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1).10.1515/cogsem-2020-2018Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2021. Multimodal construction grammar: From multimodal constructs to multimodal constructions. In Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 78–92. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351034708-6Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2022. Construction grammar: The structure of English. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hutchins, Edwin. 1995a. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hutchins, Edwin. 1995b. How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science 19. 265–288.10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1Search in Google Scholar

Hutchins, Edwin. 2000. Distributed cognition. IESBS Distributed Cognition. https://arl.human.cornell.edu/linked%20docs/Hutchins_Distributed_Cognition.pdf (accessed 12 September 2022).Search in Google Scholar

Kandler, Christian, Rainer Riemann, Alois Angleitner, Frank M. Spinath, Peter Borkenau & Lars Penke. 2016. The nature of creativity: The roles of genetic factors, personality traits, cognitive abilities, and environmental sources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111. 230–249.10.1037/pspp0000087Search in Google Scholar

Kaufman, James C. 2016. Creativity 101, 2nd edn. New York: Springer Publishing Company.10.1891/9780826129536Search in Google Scholar

Kaufman, James C. & Vlad P. Glăveanu. 2021. An overview of creativity theories. In James C. Kaufman & Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Creativity: An introduction, 17–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108776721.003Search in Google Scholar

Keno, Tetsuya. 2010. The “extended mind” approach for a new paradigm of psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 44. 329–339.10.1007/s12124-010-9128-5Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Lanwer, J. P. 2017. Apposition: A multimodal construction? The multimodality of linguistic constructions in the light of usage-based theory. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 1–12.10.1515/lingvan-2016-0071Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1969. A linguistic guide to English poetry. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Lubart, Todd, Vlad P. Glăveanu, Herie de Vries, Ana Camargo & Martin Storme. 2021. Cultural perspectives on creativity. In James C. Kaufman & Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Creativity: An introduction, 128–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108776721.009Search in Google Scholar

Newen, Albert, Leon De Bruin & Shaun Gallagher (eds.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Ningelgen, Jana & Peter Auer. 2017. Is there a multimodal construction based on non-deictic so in German? Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 1–15.10.1515/lingvan-2016-0051Search in Google Scholar

Pagán Cánovas, Cristóbal & Mihailo Antović. 2016. Formulaic creativity: Oral poetics and cognitive grammar. Language and Communication 47. 66–74.10.1016/j.langcom.2015.12.001Search in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics 54(1). 149–188. 10.1515/ling-2015-0043Search in Google Scholar

Rhodes, Mel. 1961. An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan 42. 305–310.Search in Google Scholar

Sailer, Manfred. 2020. Idioms. In Daniel. Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cecile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas E. Zimmermann (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem108.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

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

Schneck, Peter. 2018. Creative grammarians: Cognition, language and literature – An exploratory response. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 381–391.10.1515/zaa-2018-0032Search in Google Scholar

Schoonjans, Steven. 2014. Modalpartikeln als multimodale Konstruktionen. Eine korpusbasierte Kookkurrenzanalyse von Modalpartikeln und Gestik im Deutschen. Leuven: Doctoral dissertation at the University of Leuven.Search in Google Scholar

Schoonjans, Steven. 2017. Multimodal construction grammar issues are construction grammar issues. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 1–8.10.1515/lingvan-2016-0050Search in Google Scholar

Schoonjans, Steven, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts. 2015. Multimodalität in der Konstruktionsgrammatik: Eine kritische Betrachtung illustriert anhand einer Gestikanalyse der Partikeleinfach. In Jörg Bücker, Wolfgang Imo & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten, 291–308. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2012. Creative productivity and aging. In Susan Krauss Whitbourne & Martin J. Sliwinski (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of adulthood and aging, 477–496. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118392966.ch24Search in Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova (eds). 2020. Nodes and networks in diachronic construction grammar. (Constructional Approaches to Language 27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27Search in Google Scholar

Steen, Francis & Mark Turner. 2013. Multimodal construction grammar. In Mike Borkent, Barbara Dancygier & Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 255–274. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Sternberg, Robert (ed.). 1999. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Street, James & Ewa Dąbrowska. 2014. Lexically specific knowledge and individual differences in adult native speakers’ processing of the English passive. Applied Psycholinguistics 35. 97–118.10.1017/S0142716412000367Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar (Constructional Approaches to Language 18), 51–79. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.18.02traSearch in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition: An essay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674044371Search in Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2014. The ultra-social animal. European Journal of Social Psychology 44. 187–194.10.1002/ejsp.2015Search in Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme. 2018. Creativity parallels between language and music. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 371–380.10.1515/zaa-2018-0031Search in Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme. 2020. Creativity, reuse and regularity in music and language. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). No 20202021.10.1515/cogsem-2020-2021Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier 1999. A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today 20(3). 397–418.Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark. 2014. The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark. 2018. The role of creativity in multimodal construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 357–370.10.1515/zaa-2018-0030Search in Google Scholar

Turner, Mark. 2020. Constructions and creativity. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). No 20202019.10.1515/cogsem-2020-2019Search 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). 295–308.10.1515/zaa-2018-0026Search in Google Scholar

Uhrig, Peter. 2020. Multimodal research in linguistics. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 68(4). 345–349.10.1515/zaa-2020-2019Search in Google Scholar

Uhrig, Peter. 2021. Large-Scale multimodal corpus linguistics: The big data turn. Erlangen: FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg Post-doc Thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Van Trijp, Remi. 2014. Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4). 613–632.10.1515/cog-2014-0074Search in Google Scholar

Vartanian Oshin. 2021. Neuroscience of creativity. In James C. Kaufman & Robert J. Sternberg (eds.), Creativity: An introduction, 84–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108776721.007Search in Google Scholar

Veale, Tony. 2012. Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London etc.: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Ziem, Alexander. 2017. Do we really need a multimodal construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 1-9.10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095Search in Google Scholar

Zima, Elisabeth. 2014. Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 15. 1–18.Search in Google Scholar

Zima, Elisabeth. 2017. On the multimodality of [all the way from X PREP Y]. Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1). 1–12.10.1515/lingvan-2016-0055Search in Google Scholar