In:Time Representations in the Perspective of Human Creativity
Edited by Anna Piata, Adriana Gordejuela and Daniel Alcaraz Carrión
[Human Cognitive Processing 75] 2022
► pp. 233–242
EpilogueCreative to whom, and on what basis?
The role of perspective
Published online: 10 November 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.75.11cie
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.75.11cie
Abstract
This epilogue considers creativity from three different perspectives: that of the producer of the expression, of the person paying attention to the expression (the attender) in the same context, and of any attender from a different time and place than that in which the expression was produced. These perspectives are considered in face-to-face interaction and contrasted with mediated interaction. Whether an expression is perceived as creative or not from one of these perspectives depends on what is in that person’s scope of relevant behaviors. In addition, frame knowledge is considered in relation to viewing expressions as creative or not. Examples from the chapters in this volume illustrate how these various factors play out in relation to each other.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Three perspectives
- 2.1The scope of relevant behaviors
- 3.These perspectives in context
- 3.1Face-to-face interaction
- 3.2Mediated interaction
- 4.Perspectives from frame knowledge
- 5.Closing points
References
References (25)
Cienki, A. (2012). Usage events of spoken language and the symbolic units we (may) abstract from them. In J. Badio & K. Kosecki (Eds.), Cognitive processes in language (pp. 149–158). Bern: Peter Lang.
(2015a). The dynamic scope of relevant behaviors in talk: A perspective from cognitive linguistics. In Proceedings of the 2nd European and the 5th Nordic Symposium on Multimodal Communication. Available at: [URL]
(2015b). The notion of the dynamic scope of relevant behaviors in cognitive linguistic theory. In A. A. Kibrik & A. D. Koshelev (Eds.), Language and thought: Contemporary cognitive linguistics (pp. 560–573). Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture.
(2017a). Analysing metaphor in gesture: A set of metaphor identification guidelines for gesture (MIG-G). In E. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp. 131–147). London: Routledge.
(2017b). Ten lectures on spoken language and gesture from the perspective of cognitive linguistics: Issues of dynamicity and multimodality. Leiden: Brill.
(2017c). Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 20160048
(2018). Insights for linguistics and gesture studies from film studies: A view from researching cinematic metaphor. In S. Greifenstein, D. Horst, T. Scherer, C. Schmitt, H. Kappelhoff & C. Müller (Eds.), Cinematic metaphor in perspective: Reflections on a transdisciplinary framework (pp. 53–68). Berlin: De Gruyter.
(2020). A multimodal perspective on MCA: Cues of (possible) metacommunicative awareness. In C. Di Biase-Dyson & M. Egg (Eds.), Drawing attention to metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities (pp. 63–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending the and mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
Giora, R., Fein, O., Kronrod, A., Elnatan, E., Shuval, N., & Zur, A. (2004). Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor & Symbol, 19(2), 115–141.
Gullberg, M. (2014). Gestures and second language acquisition. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body–language–communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, vol. II (pp. 1868–1875). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Müller, C. (2008). What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp. 219–245). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Müller, C., & Tag, S. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 6, 85–120.
Palmer, C., & Zamm, A. (2017). Interactions in ensemble music performance: Empirical and mathematical accounts. In M. Lessaffre, P.-J. Maes & M. Leman (Eds.), The Routledge companion on embodied music interaction (pp. 370–379). London: Routledge.
Reddy, M. J. (1993). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 164–201) (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.