What, If Anything, Is Linguistic Creativity?

Open access


This paper investigates the nature of creativity in language and linguistics. Following Sampson (2016), it distinguishes between F-creativity (which roughly equals linguistic productivity) and E-creativity (which leads to new and unexpected innovations). These two notions of creativity are discussed on the basis of examples from three different domains: snow cloning, mismatch/coercion, and aberration. It is shown that pure E-creativity may only be found in the case of aberration. Both snow cloning and mismatch/coercion are examples for F-creativity, but to varying degrees. As a consequence, it is suggested that in practice, F- and E-creativity actually form a cline, rather than a dichotomy.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bauer L. (2001). Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • Black M. (1955). Metaphor. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series 55 27-294.

  • Börgerding P. Benen M.-C. & Bergs A. (under review). Expecting the unexpected: Predictive coding pattern recognition and surprise in narratives.

  • Bullock B. E. & Almeida J.T. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge Handbook of Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Chomsky N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.

  • Chomsky N. (2003). The reasons of state. London: Penguin.

  • Francis E. J. & Michaelis L. (Eds.). (2003). Mismatch. Form-Function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Goldberg A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Goldberg A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Haspelmath M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6) 1043-1068.

  • Haspelmath M. (2002). Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.

  • Hoffmann Th. (2018). Creativity and construction grammar. Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3) 259-276.

  • Jackendoff R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Keller R. (1994). Sprachwandel. Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Francke.

  • Kuperberg G. R. Arim Ch. Cohn N. Paczynski M. & Jackendoff R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22(12) 2685-2701.

  • Lakoff G. & Johnson M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

  • Pylkkänen L. & McElree B. (2007). An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19(11) 1905-1921.

  • Sampson G. (2016). Two ideas of creativity. In Martin Hinton (Ed.). Evidence. Experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language (pp. 15-26). Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Simonton D. K. (2012). Creative productivity and aging. In Susan Krauss Whitbourne and Martin J. Sliwinski (eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Adulthood and Aging (pp. 477-496). Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell.

  • Veale T. (2012). Exploring the creativity myth. The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. London: Bloomsbury.

  • Ziegeler D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39(5) 990-1028.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 82 82 19
PDF Downloads 81 81 11