Abstract
Literature is often considered the creative expression of language par excellence. This coda considers how the perspectives from Construction Grammar, as they are outlined in this special issue, can enter into dialogue with recent developments in how literary studies address creativity. Construction Grammar concerns itself with the productive generation and manipulation of language in everyday contexts, but, as this special issue goes to show, these processes can also be discussed in terms of creativity and deployed to shed light on creative processes in the arts. Convergences between Construction Grammar and (cognitive) literary studies appear to emerge in particular around the question of creative practice in literary language and (1) in how far writing gives rise to particular kinds of creativity; (2) how one can generalize between different creative media, such as literature, painting and music; and (3) how writing-based creativity can be investigated. Literary studies with its interests in media environments, social/historical context and textual analysis might provide a larger testing ground for claims about the compatibility and incompatibility of everyday and literary creativity as they are put forward in this special issue.
About the author
Karin Kukkonen is Professor in Comparative Literature at the University of Oslo. She works on cognitive poetics, cognitive narratology, and the long history of the novel. Her most recent publication is Probability Designs: Literature and Predictive Processing (OUP 2020). At the University of Oslo, she leads the interdisciplinary initiative “Literature, Cognition, and Emotions” (2019–2023).
References
Barthes, Roland. 1977. The death of the author: Image — Music — Text. Stephen Heath (ed.). London: Fontana 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.Search in Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Nikola Anna Kompa. 2020. Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2025.Search in Google Scholar
Bernini, Marco. 2014. Supersizing narrative theory: On intention, material agency and extended mind workers. Style 48(3). 349–366. https://doi.org/10.5325/style.48.3.349.Search in Google Scholar
Boden, Margaret. 2004. The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203508527Search in Google Scholar
Grésillon, Almuth. 2016. Éléments de Critique Génétique. Paris: CNRS Editions.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
Hogan, Patrick Colm. 2011. How authors’ minds make stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jajdelska, Elspeth. 2007. Silent reading and the birth of the narrator. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442684805Search in Google Scholar
Kukkonen, Karin. 2019. 4E cognition and eighteenth-century fiction: How the novel found its feet. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190913045.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
McGurl, Mark. 2011. The programme era: Postwar fiction and the rise of creative writing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674054240Search in Google Scholar
Ong, Walter. 2012. Orality and literacy: The technologising of the word. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Pagán Cánovas, Cristóbal. 2020. Learning formulaic creativity: Chunking in verbal art and speech. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2023.Search in Google Scholar
Pullinger, Kate. 2017. Breathe: A ghost story. https://www.breathe-story.com/.Search in Google Scholar
Sawyer, Keith. 2012. Explaining creativity: The science of innovation, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Stokes, Patricia. 2006. Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. New York: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2020. Creativity, reuse, and regularity in music and language. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2021.Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 1996. The literary mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Turner, Mark. 2014. The origin of ideas: Blending, creativity, and the human spark. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. 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
van Hulle, Dirk. 2014. Modern manuscripts: The extended mind and creative undoing from Darwin to Beckett. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William K. & Monroe C. Beardsley. 1946. The intentional fallacy. The Sewanee Review 54(3). 468–488.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
