Creativity in Ordinary Lanaguage - Research Proposal Example

Introduction The purpose of this research paper and specially this matter as a whole is to highlight creativity as used in language every day, improving and expanding of research based on this subject that has become significant in applied linguistic within the past years. So far, research has been so resourceful in establishing creativity and pervasiveness across different genres, to discover possible continuities between day to day and literary creativity and to judge the focused nature of creativity in everyday language. However, there is rather less in this custom of query that investigate the wider cultural, social and critical angles of creativity (Carter, 2004, p.19). Therefore, is creativity a character of particularly skilled and talented users of language or pervasive practiced in everyday use? Apparent democratization of creativity is used to refocus in applied linguistic on language use as a distinct designers of meaning. Apart from textual analysis of poetic form, the increasing interest within interactional role of creativity suggest requirement for a more dynamic model capable of addressing the dialogical nature of creativity in language. To recommend on the development of such a model, this piece is based on social-historical theories of the evaluative role of language as a social symbol as well as integrate the applied linguistic research in work from linguistic anthropology on contextualization, flexibility and framing in performance. Linguistic anthropologist looks into traditional oral art; there is an argument that critical potential and framing of performance is further keyed by more fleeting application of language in everyday use. In this context, the four contrasting examples of data (Introduction, Review, methodology and discussion) propose how an incorporated investigative structure may be created to address aspects of creativity, textual and contextual in creativity. Introduction The introductory part unlocks the investigation of the social-cultural elements of language creativity, arguing for methodical approach which incorporates textual, contextual and critical elements. Textual in this context means text-intrinsic characteristics in language. Such are the linguistic patterning and implementing particular generic frameworks. On the other hand, “contextual” looks at how ways like forms are applied in certain social-historical and interpersonal background. Lastly, the ‘critical’ highlights possibility for linguistic creativeness to forefront, in different ways, the type of critical/ analytical standpoints that is obvious every way of language use (Tannen, 1989, 74). Thus, this analytical structure is developed in the light of previously read works in applied linguistics on day to day use of poetic language in addition to linguistic anthropological investigation on performance. We would argue this conclusion consist of a better improved conceptualization of context, as well as recommendations for dealing with analyzing and critique. Ideas are then acquired from research customs in evaluation of language creativity materializing from the flow of everyday relations. In conclusion, the research will integrate and evaluate the analytical approach by discussing the manner in which textual, contextual and critical elements might be used in different ways or highlighted by various sets of data (Tannen, 1989, p.98). However, there is need for interrelation completely understand these in everyday language creativity and how its purpose. Language Creativity in Applied Linguistics (Review) Apart from being limited to media professionals, literary authors, proficient writers and speakers’ creativity is an all-encompassing feature of many everyday use of language. The early study by Tannen, current works of Cook and Carter are good examples. Much of the emphasis are on poetic forms on daily discourse- metaphor, word play, rhyme and other types of speech linked to the self-referential of language. Others are use of repetition whereby the speaker echoes the other’s words and speech and rhythm. It is worth noting that this does not play very clearly with linguistic form. Additionally, including the creative formation of dialogue in narratives to dramatize a story is helpful especially in capturing the reader’s mind in an imaginary and fictional way. Researchers have applied assorted terms for this variety of occurrences. For instance, according to Tannen (1989), the use of literary term poetic is met with an argument that talking with other people daily offers the source for strategies that are used by another person in term of literariness, literary genres and creativity. On the other hand, Carter proposes creativity is a thing of degree, present alongside a sequence of clines within ‘everyday’ and ‘literary’ texts but not a detached set of elements connected with a certain register. In a nutshell, literariness is used to sum up the clinal character of creativity. Cook refers to literary as a language play. Therefore, the terms have different logical beginning position and uses. The commonness of creativity in language has instantaneous implications for guidelines and practice in many areas including education. This can be demonstrated in terms of ‘lucid gap’ in the linguistic world of growing children in comparison to lack of playful implementation in educational stuff for example reading schemes (Leech & Short. 2007, p.79). Recent tenets in communication and task-based methods to English language instructing in the same way disregard the prospective of language play. The inclusion of play elements has a possibility of enhancing language learning of all ages. The significance of language play in learning language is accepted by many empirical researches. For instance, the study of second language acquisition has highlighted the essence of a successful element in learning; play adds value in drawing interest to linguistic form and contributes towards advanced proficiency (Tannen, 1989, p.104). Most importantly, the pervasiveness of creativity in communication also poses extensive theoretical challenge to modern opinions about language. In particular, it questions the dominance to its transactional role. According to Carter, is creative language a default condition, a standard of applying from which everyday “non-creative” exchanges elements an abnormal departure? In response, Cook suggests it may be both phylogenetically and ontogenetically, the first purpose of language is the creation of creative worlds in terms of lies, fictions, games or fantasy. Contextualization and Critique in Linguistic Anthropology Linguistic options are inspired not only by making sense but also stress and manipulating certain linguistic traits. According to Jakobon’s (1960) work on what he terms as ‘equivalence’, patterned repetition of sounds and framework has been highly influential in linguistic evaluation that focuses on creativity at a textual stage. He further states that there are six ubiquitous elements in every speech, addressee, addresser, message, context, code and contact- all of them determine respectively the phatic, poetic, referential, emotive, metalingual and conative functions of language which are diversely hierarchically arranged according to the character of the event (Jakobson, 1960). Jakobson’s list was then taken and elaborated by Hymes in the background of his proposal for substitute linguistics which might attract the performance –oriented, social and cultural elements of language in utilization and offer theoretical options. Hymes’ anthropological attention and positioned ethnographic approach are reflected in the complicated list of constituent seen as ubiquitous in a communicative occurrence such channels, settings, scene, norms of interaction and interpretation and genres. The rhetoric art of poetic arrangement is basic to the organizing and representation of experience in narrative, and its sense effects. The poetic function might be central in narrative; it is still closely linked to other elements of the speech occurrence and its meaning significance is constituted by the social-historical background. Therefore, Hymes argues that social-political factors have caused devaluation and degegitimizing of the narrative poetics of unempowered groups. In education, Hymes proposes the classification of certain narratives as authoritative and cognitively ascertained through framing and classification procedures. Methodology The method used in this analysis seeks to capture actual interactions and language use in a natural set up. Sampling is random, but controlled, the main areas of interest is to capture creativity as used in our day to day language. In this sampling, the idea is also to avoid any disruptions in the participants’ communication. The idea is to capture them in their normal and usual settings. Notably, the identified samples must be very diverse, this will be ensured by drawing from different groupings such as families, students, co-workers and children. It is established that by looking at diverse groups we increase the very chance of identifying specific variables such as escalation of creativity, (from children) all through to higher levels such as being employees or co-workers. The different ways in which these different groupings use language exposes us to the different levels of language creativity. The research questions to be used in this inquiry include: Is creativity inherent or it is a development that happens as one gains a wider grasp of language and its use. Is linguistics creativity passed on between close members or it is an independent development in every individual. What are some of the cues, words or contexts that represent creativity in language use among different people and across different groupings? Is creativity or prowess in language use transferable between individuals or persons who interact continually? Do social contexts, as defined by social interactions, have an effect on the level of language use of linguistic prowess? By developing these answers through observation, which is the main means of inquiry, the study will be able to develop a sound qualitative inquiry that understands creativity in language use. This inquiry will be further informed by sound analytic tools that ensure proper summation of data gathered. This will guarantee sound results that can be relied upon, and that can cast greater light into our subject of interest. This section draws on sights from applied linguistics as well as linguistic anthropology in the evaluation of day to day creativity in language. A family picnic, research review, school classroom and online chat room will be used as extracts of different communicative contexts. The argument is ideas developed in linguistic anthropology in connection to oral performances for example storytelling is resourceful in understanding performances that emerge frequently on daily communication (Cook, 1997, p.104). The is also a conclusion on the work of linguists like Cook and Carter in judging local, interactional and interpersonal practice in which episodes are set in. Within these four examples there is a combination of diverse analytical dimensions applicable for enhanced understanding language creativity and functions. Example 1 -Classroom talk. This example is based on a British primary school classroom where children are working on a computer activity that deals with moral dilemma. Kate’s friend, Robert has picked some chocolate for his sick mother. Kate knows stealing is incorrect. The children have to decide what Kate should do something concerning the whole thing. Three children deliberate if Kate should tell her mother. They have been taught particular strategies to discover ideas in discussion such as giving reasons for their opinions, seeking others opinions and giving reasons for their opinions. The extract is acquired from a broader evaluation of children’s talk in this setting. Gemma: Maybe she should tell her parents Dan: No…you always think that Emily: Why do you …why don’t you think that way? Dan: Because she said a promise and can’t break a promise. Gemma: Maybe she should tell her parents… (Slow thinking as she) it’s not right Dan: Steal ( ing) is wrong Gemma: Stealing (laughter) Emily: Maybe she should tell them (parents) The interactional constrictions in this dialogue represents what maybe expected in a comparatively hostile setting for linguistic creativity, at least one that is not friendly to the recurrently playful in the use of poetic language noticeable in informal interactions. When such playful language fails, it needs to engage a very concise shift of frame for example in the case of Dan. He has already disagreed with Gemma’s opinion about Kate telling her parents of Robert’s stealing. His word at turn 7(Steal (ing) is wrong) is lightly keyed as sarcasm by the tone of his voice. Gemma repeats (stealing) and sarcastically recontextualizes as observed by Kate, displayed on the computer screen. Dan’s statements bear all the hallmarks of the performance- arranged and highlighted, keyed as distinguishing front the contextual interactions; they are impulsive demonstration of wit an audience, responded by hilarity. Further, it is critically impulsive, interrupting and comically undermining the official activity as well as official social relation. It is the most interesting performance, with Emily restoring the formal discursive structure at turn 10 (Hymes, 2009, p.56). Discussion: Developing an Analytic Framework (Conclusion) The study of everyday creativity in language requires considering of three extensive and consistent analytical dimensions, namely textual, contextualized and critical. The above analyzed demonstrates a creative episode come into view from the flow of interaction, whether it online in a chat room or face-to-face. In the episode, creative language is neither planned nor unrehearsed, developed on the on the hoof, whether it is a representation of a belief, fleeting and (re) framing whereby the interaction is momentarily keyed as creative or a kind of a more sustained creative exchange (Carter,2007, p. 210) . It may use different textual forms, which reflexively attract attention to themselves, improving the experience and enjoyment of participants as well as drawing analytical /aesthetic judgment. Further, this is not singly meant for the sake of art. Creative language is applicable in a variety of interactional and social ends, as emphasized in the contextualized and critical dimension of investigation. Several textual approaches could be recast as repetition (Tennen, 1989). In fact repetition motivates other types of creativity. A contextualized dimensions looks at the contextual embeddedness of textual approaches, and their impending for re-contextualization to certain interactional and artistic effect. Critical does not necessarily mean critique of a more influential social position or ascertained value. Different kinds of language creativity could be drawn on to underpin, play alongside with or subvert authority to set equilibrium critique with mitigation. References Bauman, R. (2001). ‘Verbal art as performance’ in A. Duranti (ed.): Linguistic Anthropol-ogy: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Carter, R. (2004).Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London/New York: Routledge. Carter, R. (2007). ‘Creativities across texts and values,’ Paper presented at an AHRC-funded seminar on Transitions and Transformations: Exploring Creativity in Everyday and Literary Language. The Open University, Milton Keynes,UK, 16 March. Cook, G. (1994). ‘Repetition and knowing by heart: An aspect of intimate discourse,’ Cook, G. (2000).Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook,G.(1997).‘Languageplay,language learning,’English Language Teaching Journal 51/3: 224–31. English Language Teaching Journal 48: 133–42. Hymes, D. (2009). ‘Breakthrough into performance,’ in D. Ben-Amos and K. S. Gold stein(eds): Folklore: Performance and Communication .The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson,J.1960. ‘Closing statement: Linguisticsand poetics’ in T. A.Sebeok (ed.):Style inLanguage. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Leech, G, M. (2007). Stylein Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman. Tannen, D.1989.Talking Voices: Repetition,Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More