Creativity in Literacy Practices
Creativity in Literacy Practices:
A TEXTUAL AND CONTEXTUAL APPROACH by Agatha Xaris Villa
INTRODUCTION
AT PRESENT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF LINGUISTIC CREATIVITY. THEY DIFFER IN THE WAY THE WAY THAT THEY CONCEPTUALIZE WHAT COUNTS AS CREATIVENESS OR ‘LITERARINESS’ IN LANGUAGE AS WELL AS IN THE METHODS THEY USE TO IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE CREATIVITY IN EVERYDAY LANGUAGE.
This essay begins by discussing and exploring the premises of an analysis of creativity at text level following a textual approach to literacy and creativity; assessing the extent to which it is effective in identify creativity in literacy practices such as diaries, letters and graffiti. However, I would like to continue by presenting the argument that while literacy practices do offer opportunities for creativity at text level, the study and identification of creativity in literacy practices may be more productive when studied with a broader perspective – one that goes beyond the limits of the text and considers the influence of context in the production, reception and processing of texts, literary practices and creativity.
Creativity in literacy practices at text level
LITERACY IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF EVERYDAY LIFE AND IS A PART OF EVEN OUR MOST MUNDANE SOCIAL PRACTICES. WHILE THE ROLE WHICH LITERACY PLAYS IN SITUATIONS MAY VARY IN IMPORTANCE, IN THE CONTEXT OF LITERACY EVENTS WHERE LITERACY PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE, INDIVIDUALS DEVELOP CHARACTERISTIC AND PATTERNED WAYS OF USING AND INTERACTING WITH TEXTS. THESE HABITUAL PATTERNS HOLD DIFFERENT MEANING AND VALUES FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ARE WHAT WE REFER TO AS LITERACY PRACTICES.
Creativity in literacy practices at the level of the text may be identified by focusing on special linguistic forms that stand out in texts. This approach is modeled after what Carter (1999) called an inherency perspective which perceives creativity as being ‘inherent’ in the creative uses of language intrinsic in text. The focus
A TEXTUAL AND CONTEXTUAL APPROACH by Agatha Xaris Villa
INTRODUCTION
AT PRESENT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF LINGUISTIC CREATIVITY. THEY DIFFER IN THE WAY THE WAY THAT THEY CONCEPTUALIZE WHAT COUNTS AS CREATIVENESS OR ‘LITERARINESS’ IN LANGUAGE AS WELL AS IN THE METHODS THEY USE TO IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE CREATIVITY IN EVERYDAY LANGUAGE.
This essay begins by discussing and exploring the premises of an analysis of creativity at text level following a textual approach to literacy and creativity; assessing the extent to which it is effective in identify creativity in literacy practices such as diaries, letters and graffiti. However, I would like to continue by presenting the argument that while literacy practices do offer opportunities for creativity at text level, the study and identification of creativity in literacy practices may be more productive when studied with a broader perspective – one that goes beyond the limits of the text and considers the influence of context in the production, reception and processing of texts, literary practices and creativity.
Creativity in literacy practices at text level
LITERACY IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF EVERYDAY LIFE AND IS A PART OF EVEN OUR MOST MUNDANE SOCIAL PRACTICES. WHILE THE ROLE WHICH LITERACY PLAYS IN SITUATIONS MAY VARY IN IMPORTANCE, IN THE CONTEXT OF LITERACY EVENTS WHERE LITERACY PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE, INDIVIDUALS DEVELOP CHARACTERISTIC AND PATTERNED WAYS OF USING AND INTERACTING WITH TEXTS. THESE HABITUAL PATTERNS HOLD DIFFERENT MEANING AND VALUES FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ARE WHAT WE REFER TO AS LITERACY PRACTICES.
Creativity in literacy practices at the level of the text may be identified by focusing on special linguistic forms that stand out in texts. This approach is modeled after what Carter (1999) called an inherency perspective which perceives creativity as being ‘inherent’ in the creative uses of language intrinsic in text. The focus
References: CARTER, R. (1999). ‘COMMON LANGUAGE: CORPUS, CREATIVITY AND COGNITION’, LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE, 8(3), P. 196-216 Jakobson, J. (1960). ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, in T.A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language, MIT Press. Jolly, M. (1997). ‘Everyday Letters and Literary Form: Coresspondence from the Second World War’, unpublished MPhil, University of Sussex. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new Media Age. London and New York, Routledge. Macdonald, N. (2006). Chapter 6. Reading B: ‘The spray-can is mighteier than the sword: graffiti writing and the construction of masculine identity’ in Maybin, J. and Swann, J. (eds) The art of English: everyday creativity. Palgrave Macmillan/The Open University, p. 293 – 302. Maybin, J. (2006)(Ed.) Chapter 6 ‘Writing the self’, in Maybin, J. and Swann, J. (eds) The art of English: everyday creativity. Palgrave Macmillan/The Open University, p. 261 – 279. Maybin, J. and Pearce, M. (2006). Chapter 1 ‘Literature and creativity in English’ in Goodman, S. and O’Halloran, K. (eds) The art of English: literary creativity. Palgrave Macmillan/The Open University, p. 6-9. Papen, U. and Tusting, K. (2006). Chapter 7 ‘Literacies, collaboration and context’ in Maybin, J. and Swann, J. (eds) The art of English: everyday creativity. Palgrave Macmillan/The Open University, p. 312 – 331.