From linguistic creativity to conformity: the case of [zur Nung kommen/bringen]1
-
Fabian Fleissner
Abstract
This study explores the diachronic changes in the pattern [zur Nung kommen/bringen], arguing for its status as a semi-schematic construction in late 19th-century German, expressing converse/anti-converse diathesis, constituted through the interplay of the two verbs. Through evidence supporting this status, I aim to show that the role of creativity in the emergence of new schematic constructions should, in part, be reconsidered — a perspective that diverges from the recent argument presented by Norde and Trousdale (2024). In particular, I challenge the proposal to categorize diachronic developments leading to schematization as E-creative within the framework proposed by Sampson (2016). While creativity introduces linguistic innovations, I propose shifting the focus to conformity as a driving force in schematization, as norm-oriented language users adopt and entrench these patterns through consistent usage.
References
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2021. Individuality in language change. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110725841Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 900–919). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213881.2.899Search in Google Scholar
Beaty, Roger E., Benedek, Mathias, Silvia, Paul J., & Schacter, Daniel L. 2016. Creative cognition and brain network dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20 (2), 87–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.004Search in Google Scholar
Berg, Kristian. 2020. Changes in the productivity of word-formation patterns: Some methodological remarks. Linguistics, 58 (4), 1117–1150. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0148Search 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 Amerikanistiki, 66 (3), 277–293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0025Search in Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander, & Kompa, Nikola A. 2020. Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics, 13 (1), 1–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2025Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975.[1964]. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search 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, & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Search in Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2000. Zur Geschichte der ung-Nominalisierung im Deutschen. Ein Wandel morphologischer Produktivität. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 122 (3), 365–411. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/bgsl.2000.122.3.365Search in Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2002. Nominalization and argument structure in Early New High German. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 27, 67–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.27.2002.150Search in Google Scholar
Ellison, T. Mark, & Reinöhl, Uta. 2022. Compositionality, metaphor, and the evolution of language. International Journal of Primatology, 23, 703–719. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-022-00315-wSearch in Google Scholar
Fleissner, Fabian. 2025. How to get into containers: The emergence of German ‘Come to mind’ constructions. In Natalia Filatkina et al. (Eds.), Dynamics at the lexicon-syntax interface: Creativity and routine in word-formation and multi-word expressions. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783111321905-006Search in Google Scholar
Fleissner, Fabian, & Smirnova, Elena. (Forthcoming). Musterbasierte Wissenschaftssprache. Schematische paper constructions des Neuhochdeutschen. In Vilmos Ágel (Hg.), Grammatik des Neuhochdeutschen zwischen Gegenwart und Geschichte.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (5), 219–224. doi: https://doi.org/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. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691183954Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘Alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06griSearch in Google Scholar
Hagberg, Aric, Swart, Pieter, & Chult, Daniel S. 2008. Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX. In Proceedings of the 7th Python in Science Conference (SciPy2008). CA: Pasadena, 11–15.10.25080/TCWV9851Search in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan. 2016. Wortbildungswandel: Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern (Studia Linguistica Germanica, 125). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110471809Search in Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan. 2017. „Nominalization“ taken literally. A diachronic corpus study of German word-formation patterns. Bamberg: opus. doi: https://doi.org/10.20378/irbo-50502Search 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0027Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2019. Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5 (1), 20190019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0019Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2020. Construction grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology, and cognitive science. Cognitive Semiotics, 13 (1), 20202018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2018Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, & Audring, Jenny. 2020. Relational morphology: A cousin of construction grammar. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2241. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02241Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What ategories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. 2003. Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel, & Trousdale, Graeme. 2024. Creativity, paradigms and morphological constructions: Evidence from Dutch pseudoparticiples. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 1–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0194Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, Karl. 1896. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 187, 253–318.10.1098/rsta.1896.0007Search in Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2020. Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and links in the network: Advances in diachronic construction grammar (pp. 141–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27.04perSearch in Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2016. Two ideas of creativity. In Martin Hinton (ed.), Evidence, experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language. Berlin: Peter Lang, 15–26.Search in Google Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2018. Constructional creativity in historical perspective. Linguistics Today, 12 (3), 145–162.Search in Google Scholar
Primary sources
Deutsches Textarchiv. 2018. Deutsches Textarchiv: Grundlage für ein Referenzkorpus der neuhochdeutschen Sprache. Version 2018. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. https://www.deutschestextarchiv.deSearch in Google Scholar
©2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
