Carter (1999) identified three models of literariness: the inherency model, which embeds particular properties of language literary language is regarded distinct from more practical uses of language which highlights language itself. For carter (1999) there was some value in both inherency and socio-cultural models, and in the case of his own examples is identifies formally and in this sense is close to an inherency model however, there is one way to find examples of verbal art in his corpus, and that is to search for instances of laughter.
Although there are various approaches to the study of creativity – carter (2004, cited in maybin, p 414) coined the term inherency model for creativity relating to the “formal aspects of language as an abstract system of sounds, grammar and meaning” – for the purpose of this paper, carter’s second identified approach to understanding creativity in language – the sociocultural model – will be utilised. Discussing the relationship between everyday linguistic creativity and literary language begs the question of what literary language actually is carter (1999) distinguishes three models of literariness which underpin definitions 1-inherency model , 2- sociocultural model and 3-cognitive model.
Carter (1999) has identified three models: two established models to which he refers to as an inherency model and a socio-cultural model - and more recently, a cognitive model the inherency model sees literariness as embedding in certain properties of language: so literary language is distinct from more practical uses of language where language itself is highlighted. There are three different approaches that can be taken to creativity in language: an inherency model, a socio-cultural model and a cognitive model (carter, 1999, cited by swann, 2006, p10) in an inherency model of creativity, the concern is how the text is constructed, with the emphasis on the language used.
Creativity according to translation theories is, according to carter, best seen as constituents of a cline (julian huxley: a gradation of subspecies over a spread of categories) with gradations inclining between texts that are more or less literary and creative in the inherency model, the creativeness of literary language, or language undergoing translation, is a feature that is inherent within literariness.
Carter, in particular, also acknowledges important sociocultural and sociohistorical dimensions in creativity—that conceptions of creativity are culturally/ historically variable, and that new creativities may emerge to meet particular (changing) goals and purposes. It is hinted at in references to the functions of everyday language creativity in creating rapport and a sense of group identity (eg carter 2004 mendoza-denton 2007), and in the sense of connectness and emotional insights produced through ‘involvement’ (tannen 1989.
Carter (1999) sees some value in both ‗inherency‘ and ‗sociocultural‘ models: in the case of his own examples verbal art is identified formally, and in this sense is close to an inherency model. For carter, creativity is a matter of degree, existing along a series of clines across ‘everyday’ and ‘literary’ texts, rather than as discrete sets of features associated with particular registers of creativity—for example building solidarity and friendly relations—also points to the potential of a more dynamic model, in which. Creativity to modern creativity carter(1999) distinguishes inherency model, social cultural model and cognition model inherency model using the textual approach dictates that creativity and literariness as existing in the formal properties of we use language creativity to manage relationships.
Carter (1999) identifies three models of literariness: two established models which he refers to as an inherency model and a sociocultural model and a more recent cognitive model.
Inherency model of creativity carter essays and research papers inherency model of creativity carter readings from the first module book, the art of english: everyday creativity : (a) ronald carter , ‘common language: corpus, creativity and cognition’, pp 29–37.