Constructional Creativity – The Role of Corpus Data

Hoffmann, Thomas

doi:10.2478/jazcas-2025-0002

Abstract

One domain of human cognition that has recently received considerable attention in cognitive linguistics is linguistic creativity (e.g. Bergs 2019; Hartmann and Ungerer 2024, 2025; Hoffmann 2024, 2025; Turner 2018). The present paper gives an overview of creativity research from the fields of linguistics and psychology and introduces the 5C model of constructional creativity (constructors, co-constructors, constructs, constructional blending and the constructional network; Hoffmann 2024, 2025a,b). A particular focus of the paper will be on the role of corpus linguistics for the investigation of constructional creativity.

References

Bergs, A. (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, 6(3), pp. 277–293.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bergs, A. (2019). What, if anything, is linguistic creativity? Gestalt Theory, 41(2), pp. 173–183.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bergs, A. and Kompa, N. (2020). Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Conklin, K., and Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, pp. 45–61.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giora, R. (2003) On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 259 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Glaveanu, V. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), pp. 69–81.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartmann, S., and Ungerer, T. (2024). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics, 60(3), pp. 599–634.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartmann, S., and Ungerer, T. (2025). Chaos theory, shmaos theory: Creativity and routine in English shm-reduplication. In: S. Arndt-Lappe – N. Filatkina (eds.): Dynamics at the lexicon-syntax Interface: Creativity and routine in word-formation and multi-word expressions. De Gruyter, pp. 295–322.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 464 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 286 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 195 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Herbst, Th. (2018). Collo-Creativity and blending: Recognizing creativity requires lexical storage in constructional slots. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), pp. 309–328.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Herbst, Th., and Hoffmann, Th. (2024). A Construction Grammar of English: A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis (CASA). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 315 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. 2^nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 296 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoeksema, J., and Napoli, D. J. (2008). Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44(2), pp. 347–378.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2018). Creativity and construction grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), pp. 259–276.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2019). Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2020). Construction grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology and cognitive science. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2021). The Cognitive Foundation Of Post-colonial Englishes: Construction Grammar as the Cognitive Theory for the Dynamic Model. (Cambridge Elements in World Englishes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2022). Construction Grammar: The Structure of English. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 315 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2024). The 5C model of linguistic creativity: Construction Grammar as a cognitive theory of verbal creativity. Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures, 8(1), pp. 139–154.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2025a). Creativity. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, Elsevier. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95504-1.00588-3.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th. (2025b). Cognitive approaches to linguistic creativity. In: X. Wen – Ch. Sinha (eds.): The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th., and Steinhauser, M. (2025). Constructional Divergent Association Task (CXN-DAT): Using constructional contexts to measure linguistic creativity. Poster presented at the 2025 Society for the Neuroscience of Creativity (SfNC) conference, Paris Brain Institute (May 22 – 23, 2025).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th., and Trousdale, G. (2022). On multiple paths and change in the language network. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 70(3), pp. 359–382.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoffmann, Th., and Turner, M. (fc.). Creative Construction Grammar. (Cambridge Elements in Cognitive Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kaufman, J. C. (2016). Creativity 101. 2^nd ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 368 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lubart, T., Glăveanu, V., de Vries, He., Camargo, A., and Storme, M. (2021). Cultural perspectives on creativity. In: J. C. Kaufman – Robert J. Sternberg, (eds.): Creativity: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 128–151.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Norde, M., and Trousdale, G. (2025). Creativity, paradigms and morphological constructions: evidence from Dutch pseudoparticiples. Linguistics, 63(4), pp. 1029–1063.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Olson, J. A., Nahas, J., Chmoulevitch, D., Cropper, S. J., and Webb, M. E. (2021). Naming unrelated words predicts creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(25), e2022340118. Accessible at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022340118.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Perek, F. (2016).Using distributional Semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), pp. 149–188.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sampson, G. (2016). Two ideas of creativity. In: M. Hinton (ed.): Evidence, Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 15–26.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 468 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schneck, P. (2018). Creative grammarians: Cognition, language and literature: An exploratory response. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), pp. 381–391.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Creative productivity and aging. In: S. Krauss Whitbourne – M. J. Sliwinski (eds.): The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Adulthood and Aging. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 477–496.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sommerer, L., and Van de Velde, F. (2025). Constructional networks. In: M. Fried – K. Nikiforidou (eds.): The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 220–246.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stefanowitsch, A., and Flach, S. (2017). The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In: H.-J. Schmid (ed.): Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 101–127.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Surdeanu, M., and Valenzuela-Escárcega, M. A. (2024). Deep Learning for Natural Language Processing. A Gentle Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 344 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Trousdale, G. (2018). Creativity parallels between language and music. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), pp. 371–380.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Trousdale, G. (2020). Creativity, reuse, and regularity in music and language. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turner, M. (2018). The role of creativity in multimodal construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), pp. 357–370.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turner, M. (2020). Constructions and creativity. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Uhrig, P. (2018). I don’t want to go all Yoko Ono on you. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), pp. 295–308.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Uhrig, P. (2020). Creative intentions – The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Veale, T. (2012). Exploding the Creativity Myth: The Computational Foundations of Linguistic Creativity. London et al.: Bloomsbury, 184 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Constructional Creativity – The Role of Corpus Data

Abstract

Paradigm

My account