Cover not available
Part of
Style, Rhetoric and Creativity in Language: In memory of Walter (Bill) Nash (1926-2015)
Edited by Paul Simpson
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 34] 2019
► pp. 149–170

Chapter 9
Common Language

Corpus, creativity and cognition

| Nottingham University
This chapter takes further debates concerning the nature of literary language and the presence of literariness in a range of discourses by exploring the extent to which everyday conversational discourse displays literary properties. The author argues that studies of literary discourse, and of the continuities between literary and non-literary discourse, have tended to focus on written language or on representations of spoken discourse in fictional or dramatic dialogues. This emphasis has made for questionable connections between literature, literacy and the written language because it assumes that spoken language is no more than a less patterned version of written language. Using the Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE), the author shows how verbal inventiveness is pervasive in ordinary talk. The chapter concludes that common, everyday language is far from being either everyday or common – on the contrary, it is pervasively “poetic”.
Keywords: creativity, linguistic and literary theory, literariness, literary language, pleasure, spoken discourse, verbal play
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Writing and literary language?
  • 2.CANCODE data
    • 2.1Punning and playing
    • 2.2Morphological inventiveness: New words for old
    • 2.3Echoing and converging
    • 2.4Pattern-reforming and pattern-reinforcing
    • 2.5Summary
  • 3.Literary language: A brief history of definitions
    • 3.1Inherency models; deviation theory and self-referentiality
    • 3.2Socio-cultural models
      • 3.2.1Presentationality
      • 3.2.2Preliminary conclusions
    • 3.3Cognitive models
  • 4.All language is literary language
    • 4.1Pleasure and verbal play: Risks and rewards
    • 4.2More CANCODE data
  • 5.Developing a socio-psychological aesthetics
  • 6.Questions for research: Linguistic and literary theory
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.34.11car
References (35)
References
Bauman, R. 1977. Verbal Art as Performance. Boston MA: Newbury House.
1986. Story, Performance and Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlyne, D. 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. 1986. The aesthetic basis for cognitive structures. In The Representation of Knowledge and Belief, M. Brand & R. Harnish (eds), 314–356. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Bhaya, R., Carter, R. A. & Toolan, M. 1988. Clines of metaphoricity and situated risk taking. Journal of Literary Semantics 17(2): 81–93.Google Scholar
Boxer, D. & Cortes-Conde, F. 1997. From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 275–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. A. 1997. Investigating English Discourse: Language, Literacy, Literature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1995a. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16(2): 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995b. Discourse and creativity: Bridging the gap between language and literature. In Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics, G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds), 303–323. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1997a. Grammar, tails and affect: Constructing expressive choices in discourse. Text 17(3): 205–229.Google Scholar
1997b. Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. A. & Nash, W. 1990. Seeing Through Language: Styles of English Writing. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1995. Genes, memes, rhymes: Conscious poetic deviation in linguistic, psychological and evolutionary theory. Language and Communication 15(4): 375–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Language play in English. In Using English: From Conversation to Canon, J. Maybin & N. Mercer (eds), 198–234. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eagleton, T. 1983. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herrnstein-Smith, B. 1988. Contingencies of Value: Alternative Perspectives for Critical Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language, T. Sebeok (ed.), 350–377. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Reason and the Imagination. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lecercle, J. J. 1990. The Violence of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1995. Spoken grammar: What is it and how do we teach it?’. ELT Journal 49(3): 207–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash, W. 1985. The Language of Humour. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
1986. Sound and the pattern of poetic meaning. In Linguistics and the Study of Literature, T. D’Haen (ed.), 128–151. Dutch Quarterly Review, Studies in Literature 1. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ohmann, R. 1971. Speech acts and the definition of literature. Philosophy and Rhetoric 4: 1–19.Google Scholar
Petterson, A. 1990. A Theory of Literary Discourse in Aesthetics 2. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Pratt, M. L. 1977. Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: The Mind–Body Metaphor in Semantic Structure and Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tambling, J. 1988. What Is Literary Language? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Toolan, M. 1996. Total Speech: An Integrational Approach to Language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Statham, Simon
2020. The year’s work in stylistics 2019. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:4 ► pp. 454 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.