New words, and variations on old ones, are continually created as evidenced by the need to revise dictionaries to include them. New words are created by word-formation and other lexicalization processes. Crystal (2006, p. 71) explains that “the rate at which
[cyberusers] have been coining new terms and introducing playful variations into established ones has no parallel in contemporary language use.” What follows is a discussion of how new words are typically formed so that word-creation strategies found in cyberlanguage may be evaluated, particularly for any departures from typical means of word creation, as these departures may be viewed as evidence of linguistic creativity. Then discussion will shift to
defining the related concept of productivity—the use of word-formation processes to create new words—and determining if it is synonymous or different from linguistic creativity. This will require further exploration of what it means for a word or utterance to exemplify
creativity. Then, because creativity may manifest in language play, this section will conclude with a discussion of language play, and how cyberlanguage might provide evidence for linguistic creativity and play.
Word-‐formation
Word-formation refers to the creation of new words by compounding, conversion, combining forms, and affixation (Quirk, et al., 1985). Compounding is the process of “adding one base to another” such as combining break and fast to create the word breakfast (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1520). Conversion is a derivational process whereby a word changes
grammatical class without affixation (Crystal, 2008a; Quirk et al., 1985), such as the noun
hand becoming the verb hand as in “hand it to me.” According to the American Heritage Dictionary online,20 a combining form is “a modified form of an independent word that occurs only in combination with words, affixes, or other combining forms to form
compounds or derivatives,” such as electro- combined with magnet to form electromagnet. Affixation is a process where prefixes and suffixes are attached to bases, such as attaching
-ment to establish to create establishment.
Derivational processes, such as the ones discussed above, result in new words. Inflection does not, and so is typically not considered a word-formation process. Instead, inflection is a grammatical process of converting a word to its plural form (house to houses),
another verb tense (work to worked), or to demonstrate possession (Laura's book), but a new concept is not created (Crystal, 2008a). For instance, house and houses are fundamentally the same concept but establish (a verb) and establishment (a noun) are two different concepts, although related. With derivation, the grammatical class of the word may change—i.e., a verb may become a noun as in the case of establish and establishment—but not with inflection (Crystal, 2008a).
Some linguists, such as Bauer (1983) and Plag (2003) consider abbreviation to be a word-formation process. Bauer (1983), Plag (2003), Quirk et al. (1985), Zawada (2005), and others debate whether blends, back-formation, reduplication, and familiarity markers are examples of word-formation. Blends are the joining of two or more splinters (parts of words or clippings/shortenings) to form a new word (Lehrer, 2007). For instance, brunch combines the br- in breakfast with the -unch of lunch. Lipka (2007) believes blends are examples of word-formation. Back-formation is the derivation of a new word via the deletion of a suffix, as in edit from editor. Bauer (1983), Plag (2003), and Quirk et al. (1985) believe back- formation is a word-formation process. Reduplicatives are “compounds that have two or more constituents which are either identical or only slightly different,” such as lovey dovey
(Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1579). Hård af Segerstad (2002) and Quirk et al. (1985) believe
reduplication to be a word-formation process. Familiarity markers are words such as sweetie, auntie, and Debs (Quirk et al., 1985); Plag (2003) and Quirk et al. (1985) believe these are examples of word-formation.
There are other lexicalization processes that most scholars hesitate to officially deem as word-formation. These include borrowings—taking a word from one language and using it
in another language, such as using the Italian pizza in English—and figurative constructions such as allusions, metonymy, and metaphor.
Productivity and creativity
Productivity refers to the creation of new words and utterances through adherence to the rules of specific languages, such as French or German (Chomsky, 1966). For example, affixation is seen as a productive word formation process, and certain affixes are seen as more productive—capable of yielding more new words and forms of expression—than others. For example, un- is a more productive affix than -th because it can be attached to a larger number of words than -th, which is only attached to a very small set of words such as
length and width. Furthermore, the degree to which an affix is productive may change over time—e.g., -th is rarely attached to modern words.
Creativity, according to Chomsky (1966) is a property of language—21as an act of
communication—and has to do with how human communication is non-conditioned, as opposed to animal communication which is often regulated by stimulus response. Whereas animal communication is considered to be purely mechanistic, as a result of instinct, human communication is the “free expression of thought for appropriate response to new situations” (Chomsky, 1966, p. 13). Carter (2004, p. 78) claims that the Chomskyan notion of creativity is biological; it is “a statement about a genetically endowed capacity to exploit an underlying system.”
To Bauer (1983), productivity is rule-governed innovation while creativity is rule- bending innovation where the interlocutor extends the language an unpredictable way.
21 The distinction between languageand languages comes from a personal email exchange with David Crystal
Joining two combining forms such as techno- and -crat to form technocrat follows a convention for joining words or combining forms that end in vowel sounds with the
combining form -crat, to create terms for specific types of rulers/leaders, such as bureaucrat
and autocrat. This is rule-governed innovation. “Lexical creativity arises when old devices are used in new ways” (Rúa, 2007, p. 157), such as attaching “existing affixes to unusual or unorthodox bases” as in the case of attaching the prefix re- to hi to form rehi (Rúa, 2007, p. 147). Affixes are not typically attached to greetings, such as hi or hello. Rehi is an example of rule-bending innovation.
Thus, productivity is a form of creativity in that new forms are created through adherence to a language’s rules about word-formation, but it is a mechanistic process that presumes some innate human ability to form new, stimulus-free utterances. This is the Chomskyan notion of creativity. Alternatively, linguists, such as Bauer, speak of a different form of creativity that is not mechanistic and biologically-driven. It is a form of innovation where new forms are created by exploiting and bending a language’s rules. Linguistic creativity is further specified as the creation of novel forms as a way to fulfill some social and communicative purpose—including overcoming conceptual gaps—within a specific context with specific individuals.
“Most approaches to creativity relate it to novelty” (North, 2007, p. 539). Interlocutors purposefully create new forms because it is enjoyable, indexes personal identity, and demonstrates one’s sense of belonging to a group (Carter, 2004). “Creativity functions to give pleasure, to establish both harmony and convergences as well as disruption and critique, to express identities and to evoke alternative fictional worlds which are
Interlocutors may also choose to create new forms to demonstrate politeness, avoid sensitive issues, or enhance one's status within a group (Zawada, 2005). Creativity is also risky because there is always the possibility that a new form will fall flat in some way, and an unsuccessful performance can result in embarrassment; a successful one can create “accord, intimacy, involvement, affect” and can be “'schema-refreshing”' (Carter, 2004, p. 110).
Novel expressions may also be required to overcome problems within a “conceptual space” (Carter, 2004, p. 36). Creativity may be employed to resolve linguistic gaps or conflicts within a communication situation, as in the case of creating a new term for a new concept that hitherto had no sufficient label for it (Howden, 1984; Quirk et al., 1985; Zawada, 2005). This may be done by combining elements in new ways, such as adding affixes to unorthodox bases, compounding terms that have not previously been combined, or in more rare cases, creating something from nothing (e.g., coinage).
Creativity is context-dependent (Carter, 2004; North, 2007). It is dynamic and emergent, “relative to the values, beliefs and judgments formed within and according to the needs of different social groups, communities and cultural systems” (Carter, 2004, p. 82). It requires “‘insider’ recognition and acceptance” (Carter, 2004, p. 140). “Creative processes and creative thought have to be adaptive and to be fitted to a changing environment and existing social conventions” (Carter, 2004, p. 41). “Creativity results in changes to domains or in the establishment of new domains” (Carter, 2004, p.48).
Creativity is also specific to the individual (Quirk et al., 1985). It is the result of dialogic interaction among individuals (Carter, 2004). A creative individual is someone who possesses the ability “to think laterally and innovatively, especially for purposes of problem- solving and changing accepted ways of seeing and understanding” (Carter, 2004, p. 41). In
speaking of himself, Picasso (as cited in Picasso & Sabartés, 1946)—22generally thought to
be a creative genius—explained that if he were to adhere to grammatical rules that “have nothing to do with me, whatever is personal in my writings would be lost in a grammar which I have not assimilated. I would prefer to invent a grammar of my own than to bind myself to rules which do not belong to me.” “Competent users of a language have an extended language repertoire, and when new situations arise, they create new appropriate language varieties out of existing language varieties” (Ferrara et al., 1991). “Every individual creative act of every speaker therefore, has the potential to change the language, in the sense of add-ons, growth and development (e.g. in the vocabulary), as well as in the modification of the system” (Zawada, 2005, p. 49).
Language play
Language play is very much a linguistically creative process. Carl Jung (1971, p. 200) explains that “the creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but by the play instinct.” As with linguistic creativity, play is about breaking the rules (Crystal, 1998). When some linguistic feature—letters, sounds, words, word parts, phrases, sentences—is manipulated—i.e., made to do something it would not normally do—for the purpose of enjoyment, this is play (Crystal, 1998).
Language play can include contrasting tones of voice, sound play, mock regional tones, jokes that make plays on words, manipulation of letters, deviant forms of monologue and dialogue, word games like crossword puzzles, word twisting like puns, nonsense scat singing, rhyme, reduplication, morphological changes such as adding endings to nouns (fishy,
22 See p. 119 in Picasso, P., & Sabartés, J. (1946). Paintings and drawings of Picasso, with a critical survey.
snakey), nonsense names (Mr Higglety Pigglety), and code languages like Pig Latin (Crystal, 1996).
Like creativity, play involves metalinguistic awareness of the structure of language so that the norm can be reshaped in new ways (Crystal, 1996; Danet et al., 1997).Words are treated as objects or toys to be played with (Danet et al., 1997). Language play is about “upping the ante,” stretching conventions, as in taking IMHO (in my humble opinion) up a notch to IMHBCO (in my humble but correct opinion) (Crystal, 2008b, p. 53).
Language play is important personally (adding to quality of life), socially (signifying group bonds), educationally (improving language learning for children), and creatively (as a means of self-expression for a variety of domains). Poets, advertisers, comedians, and more all engage in language play for creative expression.
Conclusion
Crystal (2008b, p. 27) explains that many linguistic processes used in creating cyberlanguage are “centuries old.” They have been seen in cartoons, advertisements, and poetry; however, “what is new, though, is their simultaneous and worldwide usage” (Silva, 2010, p. 267). Interlocutors draw on what they already know about language to satisfy the demands of new and changing communication situations. Overcoming and working with the constraints and affordances of new media to refashion language so that it suits the context exemplifies creative problem solving.
Crystal (2006, p. 71) believes that “a strong personal, creative spirit imbues Netspeak, as an emerging variety.” Online language may be the “latest manifestation of the human ability to be linguistically creative and to adapt language to suit the demands of diverse
settings” (Crystal, 2008b, p. 175). It may very well be resounding evidence of human ability to create and play with language, something that makes humans very special—“homo loquens at its best” (Crystal, 2006, p. 276).
Online, the “distinction between text and context becomes blurred”; “context is itself textually-constructed” (North, 2007, p. 540). Because cybermedia introduce new and
changing communication opportunities that are socially co-constructed and that present new communication puzzles to be solved, they are fertile ground for creative expression (Carter, 2004; Rúa, 2007). “Internet users are continually searching for vocabulary to describe their experiences, to capture the character of the electronic world, and to overcome the
communicative limitations of its technology” (Crystal, 2006, p. 71). This “new world of technology” has led to “almost endemic, and to a certain degree essential” coinage (Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1535). “The medium has provided an impulse towards new text types and new forms of creative interaction, in which a new interface has been created between spoken and written language” (Carter, 2004, p. 190).
Carter (2004, p. 193) considers the “grapho-phonemic manipulations of the language system”—such as capitalization or duplication of letters to indicate emphasis and vocal quality—found in online communication to be creative. Rúa (2007) deems creative the use of many of the features outlined in the earlier section “Cyberlanguage and Its Characteristics.” Some of these features are examples of the word-formation processes outlined above; some represent other word-creation strategies that involve other forms of creative manipulation, such as typographical and orthographical variation.
Furthermore, “wordplay is ubiquitous” in cybermedia (Crystal, 2006, p. 171). Danet et al. (1997) believe that online language is inherently playful because the object that
facilitates the communication—the computer—necessarily invites experimentation and bricolage—i.e., creativity. The ephemerality, speed, interactivity, and “freedom from the tyranny of materials” that a computerized, virtual environment offers is what fosters
playfulness in computer-mediated communication (Danet et al., 1997, An Inherently Playful Medium, para. 2). With cybermedia, interlocutors may “invoke the frame of ‘make-believe’” (Danet et al., 1997, An Inherently Playful Medium section, para. 1). Identities are masked that may free interlocutors to be “other than ‘themselves’” (Danet et al., 1997, The Masking of Identity, para. 1) so they may “experiment with different forms of communication and self-representation” (Reid, 1991, Computer-Mediated Communication section, para. 7). Communication in cybermedia may, therefore, become performative (Danet, 2001; Danet et al., 1997). The stage is simply the range of typographical choices a keyboard offers, and the script is what the interlocutors make of it, moment-to-moment, with their creative
manipulation of language.