{"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}
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
