Creativity Exists in all Literary Practices

Literary language is most often considered the realm of academia, the language of the literati and too snooty for common use.&nbsp. Concepts such as metaphors, similes, homophones, puns, rhymes, etc all fall within the boundaries of the dreaded literary text and are all used, it can be argued, for the same purposes in communicating.&nbsp. More research into language studies reveals that the types of creative language use that we seek with tortured minds during our high school literature classes are actually more of a spontaneous element of our common communication patterns. “Creativity is not restricted to literary texts but is a common aspect of our interaction with others” (7). Examples that this is the case can be heard in any lunchroom or family room conversation as people play with the words they use in sometimes nonsensical yet highly amusing ways. If it appears in speech and casual communication, it is likely that these elements of speech also appear spontaneously in other forms of communicative language – business reports, sales materials, instruction manuals, etc.&nbsp.

In discussing creativity in literary language and how it relates to the concept of creativity in everyday language, Robert Carter has proposed three different models. These include the inherency model, the sociocultural model and the cognitive model (Carter, 2004). The inherency model suggests that creativity in the language is an academic pursuit – where the language is deliberately engaged in an exploration of itself. The sociocultural model suggests that this creativity in its use is the result of specific social and cultural definitions. Rather than the language being engaged in an exploration of itself, under this model, it is a product of the social and cultural ideas surrounding it which determines whether it is literary or not and thus can include everyday performance through normal interaction.