INVESTIGATION INTO LINGVOCREATIVITY AS PART OF HUMAN
CREATIVE ACTIVITY RESEARCH
Prof. DSc. Elena Pozdnyakova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), Russian Federation
Isn’t creativity a mysterious force that
will forever resist scientific explanation?
(Sawyers K.R. 2006, p 4 )
ABSTRACT
The article deals with cognitive approaches to creativity of action. Two fields of current
knowledge, connected with human creativity have become the background for the
study. The first one is modern sociology theory of creativity of action [1]. It states that
creativity is considered to be a prototypical attribute of all human actions. The second
area of knowledge is cognitive linguistics. The author builds the research on the
assumption that language, being immanent part of cognitive ability of man, gives much
evidence about creativity of action in humans. The aim of the present research is to
support with qualitative and quantitative data the hypothesis that creativity in language
is full-scale type of activity, including conceptualization, intentionality, goal-setting and
realization of action in the nominative process. Methods, employed in research are:
propositional analysis for compound words and derivatives; conceptual analysis of
cognitive structures. 6960 nomena agentis of the English language were analyzed by
methods of definitional, propositional and conceptual analysis. The results of the
research proved that creative activity of the nominative process is represented by the
model: intentionality – agentivity – conceptualization of word meaning – creative
process of nomination – goal achievement. The unlimited creativity of the word
nominative process can correlate with the creativity of action in general. The research
demonstrates that creativity in language has cognitive-nominative character and is in
line with understanding creativity in other cognitive sciences (philosophy, sociology,
social cognition). It can also serve as model of creative actions study in other fields of
human activity.
Keywords: human activity, creativity, proposition, conceptualization, “little c”
creativity, lingvocreativity
INTRODUCTION
This article focuses on the problem of creativity of action in general and instances of
human creative activity in particular. Hence it is necessary to give consideration to three
main concepts: action, activity, and creativity. It is obvious that nowadays it can be
done only within the frame of interdisciplinary approach. In this article the approach is
grounded in cognitive science methodology. A step forward in this field, connected with
embodied cognition, adds much to the study of human action and activities.
Introducing “action science” as interdisciplinary field of research, Herwig, Beisert and
Prinz demonstrate that the modern scientific paradigm is witnessing “action turn” [2].
The fields of inquiry they mention are: motor behavior and motor control; interplay of
attention and action; research on visual perception and action; new approach to action in
developmental and social psychology; ecological approach and dynamic systems
theory; the domain of humanoid robotics, etc. [ibid.9-12].
All fields mentioned contribute to action study with their specific methods. Within the
framework of this article one more science – cognitive linguistics should be added to
the scope of action sciences. Its interdisciplinary character has been widely accepted.
Many linguists and psychologists (Saussure, Shcherba, Piaget et al.) stress the fact that
nominative processes are instances of human linguo-mental activity. Linguo-cognitive
processes of thinking and speaking can be defined as human nominative activity.
Activity is understood here as “the state or quality of being active”, “any specific deed,
action, pursuit”. Alongside with this definition comes the definition for action as “the
state or process of doing something or being active” [3]. In this study we use the term
“activity” for particular nominative processes aimed at creating a new word. The term
“action” is used as generic to denote human actions of any character.
There is another term to be discussed here – creativity. How much creativity is there in
everyday speech? Can everyday communication be called a creative process? It is well
known that people of all languages coin new words for particular tasks (naming of new
objects and processes, political correctness, substitution of taboo words etc.) and for
language play. This is called “little c” creativity. “Scientists have used several different
definitions of creativity, but they all fall somewhere between two camps. In one camp
are definitions that require that some socially valuable product be generated before the
act or the person is called “creative.” Only solutions to extremely difficult problems, or
significant works of genius, are recognized as creative. This is sometimes called “big C”
Creativity. In the other camp are definitions that don’t require anything socially
valuable; rather, the act of creativity is itself enough, even if nothing recognized as
socially valuable is generated. Any and all works are considered creative, even those of
a beginning student that will not be remembered after the end of the semester. In
contrast to big C Creativity, this is called “little c” creativity. Little c creativity includes
activities that people engage in every day: modifying a recipe when you don’t have all
of the ingredients called for; avoiding a traffic jam by finding a new way through side
streets; figuring out how to apologize to a friend for an unintended insult” [4].
In the study below the following questions are to be discussed:
In what way nominative activity contributes to the study of “little c” creativity
Can cognitive models built for “little c” creativity in language be compared to
models of creative non-linguistic actions?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was carried out in English. 6960 nomena agentis of the English
language were analyzed by methods of definitional, propositional and conceptual
analysis. They were collected by corpora (BNC) and dictionaries analysis [5,6,7].
Special attention was paid to recently coined words, because they have open semantic
structure.
Definitional analysis was applied to all the nouns under study. Its aim was twofold.
Firstly, definitions were borrowed from the dictionaries to determine cognitive
structures for derivatives and compounds. Secondly, definitions were analyzed as true
statements for propositions.
cognitive structure
A derivative / compound definition
propositional structure
So on the thirst stage of the experiment an amount of about 7000 nomena agentis was
represented in 65 propositional structures of the type AGENT – OPERATION (any
concept for connection of two entities: animate (x1) and animate/inanimate (x2)PATIENT / OBJECT, that is (x1, x2) y. AGENT is a person, capable of intentions, goalsetting, volition and control. Diversity of events in the real world results in diversity of
interconnections between AGENT and PATIENT / OBJECT.
On the second stage of the experiment a conceptual system, representing cognitive
structures of nomena agentis, was developed. Concept AGENT got more generalized
form of ACTOR, as cognitive structures for nomena agentis showed a variety of
concepts with some, but not all agentive characteristics. Conceptual analysis of
cognitive structures resulted in a number of variations for ACTOR concept (AGENT,
EXPERIENCER, INSTRUMENT, SOURCE, MEANS). AGENT and EXPERIENCER
are concepts for animate entities, INSTRUMENT, SOURCE, MEANS – for inanimate.
So the method of conceptual analysis consisted in defining what concepts a speaker /
coiner of a new word utilizes to form propositional structures relating to all types of
human actions. Nomena agentis are formed as conceptual derivatives of actions,
processes and states that can be witnessed in the real world. Conceptual derivation
which goes prior to verbal derivation, connects a person as doer of the action with the
action and the setting or event where it takes place.
To sum up, the experiment material and the methods of analyses allowed us to obtain
quantitative and qualitative data that will be presented below.
TABLES AND GRAPHS
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Diagram 1. Distribution of all words in the experiment in accordance with the active
word-building patterns in the English language for nomena agentis.
Suffixed word-building patterns
Conversion patterns
Compunds patterns
Compounds with suffixes patterns
Patterns with suffixoids
Patterns with prefixes
29 (4399 words)
2 (24 words)
15(1816 words)
2 (501 words)
10 (196 words)
7 (54 words)
Table 1. Number of words in the experiment for each group of word-building patterns
Type of causation ACTOR
Physical
Instr, Means
Animacy(-)
Control(-)
Volition(-)
Ability to move (+/-)
Volitional
Agent
animacy (+)
control(+)
volition (+)
ability to move (+)
Affective
Stimulus
animacy (-)
control(-)
volition(-)
ability to move (-)
Inducive
Agent
animacy(+)
control(+)
volition(+)
ability to move (+)
PATIENT/OBJECT PREDICATES
Change of state or Action verbs
position of PATIENT INSTR – OPER
/OBJECT
Switch
ACTOR (INSTR)OPER-OBJ
Grass-cutter
MEANS – OPER –
OBJ
Air-freshener
INSTR – OPER
Washing machine
Change of state or Predicates: MAKE,
position of PATIENT DEAL
WITH,
/OBJECT
WORK, SUPPORT,
WORK
WITH,
ACT,
CAUSE,
MOVE;
Actional verbs
Globe-trotter
Change of emotional Predicate: CAUSE
state of PATIENT
Affect verbs
ACTOR-CAUSEFEELING
ACTOR – CAUSE
ACTOR–
OPEROBJ thriller
Change of emotional Affect verbs
or physical state of ACTOR- OPER
PATIENT
persuader
Table 2. Data of qualitative analysis of concept ACTOR.
PATIENT
EXISTIENT
COMITATIVE
EXPERIENCER
STIMULUS
BENEFACTIVE
AGENT
DESCRI
PTIVE
COUNTERAGENT
INSTRUMENT
MEANS
Figure 1. AGENT as cluster concept
Agentivity is conceptualized in nomena agentis as cluster of concepts, representing
knowledge structures about agents’ intentionality, volition, goal-setting, result
achievement. So the qualitative analysis helps understand “agential deviance” – from
the strongest AGENT concept to the weakest “EXISTIENT” concept. Types of
causation were borrowed from [8, 167]. So concept ACTOR comprises the following
“agential deviance”: AGENT, INSTRUMENT, MEANS, EXPERIENCER,
STIMULUS, COMITATIVE, COUNTER-AGENT, BENEFICIANT, EXISTIENT.
The data in table 2 also refer to causation types. The qualitative analysis of causation
plays an important role in defining the character of agentivity in human actions. This
type of analysis provides us with important clues for presenting results of the study and
further discussion.
RESULTS
The results of the research proved that creative activity in the nominative process is
represented by the cognitive model: intentionality – agentivity – conceptualization of
word meaning – creative process of nomination – goal achievement. Words are
representations of referents in human mind and in language. The sample of words and
the methods (definitional, propositional and conceptual analyses) allowed us to proceed
to a new stage of research - the quantitative and qualitative data study. The quantitative
data demonstrated prevalence of habitual ways in coining words in the nominative
process (suffixation and compounding).
The qualitative data gave much more food for thought. The analysis of causation types
raises the issue of intentionality of action. As intentionality is mental by nature, its
presence in the cognitive model is determined by typical characteristics of agency. But
such types of causation as physical and affective lead to unintentional actions, what is
supported in the study by the conceptual structures of words analyzed.
As it was mentioned above, embodied cognition has contributed much to the action
theory. And here we face the intentional challenge again. Three kinds of intentions are
distinguished: future intentions (I will retire some day), proximal intentions (I will now
type the letter L) and motor- intentions for which word-represented intention is difficult
to find [9, 7]. The cognitive model for lingvocreativity is no doubt intentional and is
based on proximal intentions.
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present research was to support with qualitative and quantitative data the
hypothesis that nominative process creativity in language is full-scale type of activity
for coining words, including intentionality, conceptualization, goal-setting, concept
structure building, choosing word-building pattern and introducing a newly created
word into speech (oral or written).
To answer the first question: “In what way nominative activity contributes to the study
of “little c” creativity” it was necessary to demonstrate that word-building patterns can
be understood in terms of conceptual structures. Conceptualization is the foundation of
“little c” creativity, especially in such lingvo-mental processes as word coining. The
epigraph to the article poses a question if scientific explanation is compatible with
creativity. The answer can be “yes” in case “little c” creativity is under study.
The experiment with nomena agentis demonstrated that creativity (word-coining),
guided by linguistic patterns and based on cognitive model for nominative process goes
well with scientific explanation.
The second question was whether cognitive models built for “little c” creativity in
language can be compared with models of creative non-linguistic actions.
Again the answer will be “yes”, but with limitations. The issue was considered in [10].
In H. Joases’ book “Die Kreativität des Handelns” he builds a model of creative action
[1]. This model combines various dynamic phases of action: habitual action; unexpected
violation of habitualization, creative attempts to solve the problem that in the course of
time will form new habitulizations [ibid.7].
In [10] it was stressed that nominative processes follow the same cycle. New
phenomena and processes in the world urge people to name them and people who
perform these processes. The urgency causes “violation of habitualization”, i.e.
activation of the cognitive model of the nominative process. And this is the moment
when a new word appears. Its future is uncertain and depends on the process of
conventiolization.
Thus we can say that “letter c” creative processes have much in common both in
linguistic and non-linguistic creativity. Creativity of the word nominative process can
correlate with the creativity of action in general.
CONCLUSION
The research demonstrates that creativity in language has cognitive-nominative
character and is in line with understanding creativity in other cognitive sciences
(philosophy, sociology, social cognition). The cognitive model of creative nominative
actions in language can be applied in other fields of human activity.
REFERENCES
[1] Joas H. Die Kreativität des Handelns. Frankfurt/M., 1996.
[2] Herwig A., Beisert M., Prinz W. Action science emerging: introduction and
leitmotifs, Action science. Foundations of an emerging discipline, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachussetts, London,England, pp 1-33, 2013.
[3] Collins English Dictionary
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/activity
[4] Sawyer R.K. Explaining creativity. The science of human innovation, Oxford
University Press, pp 27 , 2006.
[5] Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, NewYork,
Gramercy Books, 1996.
[6] The New New Words Dictionary, Updated and Revised, ( H. LeMay, S.Lerner,
M.Taylor (eds.), NewYork, 1989.
[7] Fifty Years Among the New Words. A Dictionary of Neologisms, 1941-1991,
J.Algeo (ed.), Cambridge: CUP, 1991.
[8] Croft W. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. The Cognitive
Organization of Information, Cambridge, CUP, pp 331, 1991.
[9] Pacherie E. Towards dynamic theory of intentions, Does consciousness cause
behavior? An investigation into the nature of volition, Cambridge, Mass., MIT PRESS
[10] Pozdnyakova E., Creativity of action in the mirror of lingvocreativity as human
activity, Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, Russia, vol. 3, pp 43 – 49.