混合是创造性的，但混合不是——这是对马克·特纳的回应

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Cognitive Semiotics Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1515/cogsem-2020-2020

T. Herbst

{"title":"混合是创造性的，但混合不是——这是对马克·特纳的回应","authors":"T. Herbst","doi":"10.1515/cogsem-2020-2020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This short response to Mark Turner’s article on “Construction and creativity” takes the idea of blending — which is at the centre of Turner’s argument — a step further and shows how it can be applied to syntactic analysis. Furthermore, it distinguishes between blendedness and blending, discussing the relevance of these concepts with respect to their relevance with respect to linguistic creativity.","PeriodicalId":52385,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Semiotics","volume":"252 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Blending is creative, but blendedness is not — a response to Mark Turner\",\"authors\":\"T. Herbst\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cogsem-2020-2020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This short response to Mark Turner’s article on “Construction and creativity” takes the idea of blending — which is at the centre of Turner’s argument — a step further and shows how it can be applied to syntactic analysis. Furthermore, it distinguishes between blendedness and blending, discussing the relevance of these concepts with respect to their relevance with respect to linguistic creativity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Semiotics\",\"volume\":\"252 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Semiotics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2020\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Semiotics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇简短的文章是对马克·特纳关于“结构和创造力”的文章的回应，它进一步阐述了混合的概念——这是特纳论点的中心——并展示了如何将其应用于句法分析。此外，它区分了混合和混合，讨论了这些概念的相关性，以及它们与语言创造力的相关性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Blending is creative, but blendedness is not — a response to Mark Turner

Abstract This short response to Mark Turner’s article on “Construction and creativity” takes the idea of blending — which is at the centre of Turner’s argument — a step further and shows how it can be applied to syntactic analysis. Furthermore, it distinguishes between blendedness and blending, discussing the relevance of these concepts with respect to their relevance with respect to linguistic creativity.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cognitive Semiotics Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量