Cover not available
Part of
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

Epilogue
Creative to whom, and on what basis?

The role of perspective

 | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
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.
Keywords: attender, face-to-face interaction, frames, mediated interaction, scope of relevant behaviors
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
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.75.11cie
References (25)
References
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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
(2017b). Ten lectures on spoken language and gesture from the perspective of cognitive linguistics: Issues of dynamicity and multimodality. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017c). Utterance Construction Grammar (UCxG) and the variable multimodality of constructions. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1), 20160048 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending the and mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, C., & Tag, S. (2010). The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 6, 85–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T. (2009). From attention to meaning. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar