Papen and Tusting (2006, p.312) define literacy practices as ‘the [patterned] ways people use and interact with texts in particular contexts, and the meanings that these hold for them’. It is Papen and Tusting’s view that creativity can be found in all literacy practices, both in the way that texts are constructed and in the way that they are read and interpreted (2004, p.312). Their argument is based on their premise that creativity is defined as ‘making something which is new, which did not exist before the creative act’ or ‘making something which is original, which is unlike things that have been made before’ (Papen and Tusting, 2006, p.315) – a definition which, in its broadness, allows for creativity to be identified in a wide range of contexts and literacy practices.

In this essay, I shall discuss Papen and Tusting’s theory of inherent creativity in literacy practices, and examine the evidence of creativity in some everyday literacy practices. I shall also evaluate the extent to which Papen and Tusting’s claim of inherent creativity in literacy practices depends on the adoption of their broad definition of creativity, and how other theories of creativity fit in with these claims.

Papen and Tusting (2006, p.315) claim that ‘it is very hard to find an example of a literacy practice that is entirely “uncreative” [because] all meaning-making processes have a creative element’. Meaning-making, by their definition, thus applies to all literacy practices. It is important to note that Papen and Tusting’s definition of a creative act differs somewhat from a more restrictive concept of linguistic creativity. Papen and Tusting’s ‘creative acts’ do not necessarily involve creativity at the word and sentence level, for example, which is at the heart of what Carter (2004) calls the inherency model of language and creativity. Papen and Tusting’s model of creativity may be seen as akin to Carter’s socio-cultural model of language creativity, but nonetheless it remains a much broader interpretation of socio-cultural creativity than those proposed by other theorists.

Papen and Tusting’s theory of creativity residing in all literacy practices subverts traditional approaches to language creativity, allowing literacy practices that might not necessarily be otherwise described as creative to be labelled so.

There can be little evidence of a traditional definition of linguistic creativity in the practice of information gathering and collation, for example, but Papen and Tusting’s ‘meaning-making’ approach nonetheless allows for such literacy practices to be described as acts of creativity. Papen and Tusting (2006, pp.314-315) identify creativity in the practice of form-filling and ‘collecting supporting paperwork’ on the basis of there being an act of creation because the particular combination of documents did not previously exist (it is therefore ‘new’) and because the creator is using ‘her creativity to work out her own ways of going about this unwelcome task’. In such a practice, it is unlikely that there is any creativity at a purely linguistic level – only by Papen and Tusting’s broadening of the definition of creativity can such a practice be defined as ‘creative’. Even adopting a socio-cultural perspective of creativity, it would be difficult to identify a culture in which such a practice could be defined as strictly creative. Carter (2004, p.47) underlines that ‘even when [creativity] involves imitation of existing models creative output is usually more than mere copying or reproduction’. Therefore, whilst Papen and Tusting regard this literacy practice as creative, other approaches to creativity would be unlikely to do so. The identification of literacy practices as creative is subjective as it is dependent on the definition of creativity.

Papen and Tusting (2006, pp.315-316) maintain that whilst meaning making resources have come from previous experiences, the ‘combination of particularities is always unique’ and, as such, ‘all communication is creative’ in both the senses of being something new and something original (Papen and Tusting’s definition of creativity) ‘even where the text is an exact copy of one used before’.

Whilst copying, in some contexts, could be described as creative, this is not true of all forms of copying. Types of copying more open to a label of creativity include such practices as copying and pasting text in word-processing tasks, where there is evidence of creativity in the creator’s ‘design choices’, as well as potentially at a linguistic level where there might be manipulation of the text, as in blocks of texts being moved around to create new sentences and paragraphs – and therefore, new meaning. From a cultural perspective such a practice would be more readily described as creative than the collation of documents (above). Papen (2006, p.350) notes that whilst ‘copying someone else’s invention hardly qualifies as a creative act’, practices such as marketing rely on ‘copying and reappropriating’. There is clearly a line to be drawn between a simple act of copying and a more creative approach to copying. This consequently undermines the notion of all literacy practices being creative, because there are, indeed, literacy practices that involve copying at its most basic (and uncreative) level. In classrooms all across the world, children are frequently set the task of literally copying chunks of text from books and blackboards into their exercise books. In this practice there is no creative decision making or ‘design’ on the part of the student. There is no sense of ‘reappropriation’ or reinvention – no actual creative act. Even by Papen and Tusting’s standards, it would be difficult to describe this practice as actually creative, for even though in a vague sense there is a creation of something that din not previously exist in the exercise book, to describe this as creative would be akin to describing the act of photocopying as a creative practice: copying a chunk of text verbatim is little more than producing a facsimile.

Whilst there are clearly problems with Papen and Tusting’s claim that all literacy practices are creative, that is not to say that there are not a great deal of literacy practices that can be described as inherently creative.

Papen and Tusting (2006, p.323) draw attention to the fact that recent advances in technology have led to a greater number of literacy practices that undoubtedly involve significant amounts of creativity. Kress (2003, quoted in Papen and Tusting, 2006, p.323) has developed the concepts of ‘transformation’ and ‘transduction’ in order to explain the creativity which he sees as inherent in technology influenced literacy practices. ‘Transformation’ involves a process of altering and adapting ‘the forms of signs within a mode in relation to… needs and interests’ (Papen and Tusting, 2006, p.323), for example, the creative manipulation of letters, numbers and symbols within the restricted mode of texting to produce the textual art of ‘emoticons’. ‘Transduction’ refers to a process where ‘meaning that was originally configured in one mode is moved across to a different one’ (Papen and Tusting, 2006, p.323). Transduction thus allows for creativity to be identified more easily, at least by Papen and Tusting’s definition. For example, transduction is evident both in the more-obviously creative practices involved with computer-mediated-communication (CMC) where text which is normally communicated in an oral mode can be communicated in a written mode, and also in the less-obviously creative practice of the simple recitation of a poem or story verbatim, where otherwise recitation is more akin to a form of copying. Papen and Tusting (2006, p.323) furthermore note that performance is an act of creation in the sense that if a text has never before been performed by a particular person in a particular context, then it is a unique or original interpretation, which meets their creativity criteria.

Papen and Tusting (2006, p.324) further claim that there has been an increase in creative literacy practices in recent years due to the changing nature of literacy practices brought about by the advances in technology. It is their view that rather than language being a stable system, in which acts of creativity would be rare and unusual, language is a system ‘”in flow”, a system that is constantly created and recreated’ so that ‘creativity… turns into a normal event’. This, however, does not mean that all literacy practices are thus creative.

The creation or co-creation of texts encompasses many literacy practices, but there remain a number of literacy practices that do not involve the actual creation of a text. Reading is one such practice which does not involve an actual act of creation. However, Papen and Tusting note the existence of creativity even in reading. This viewpoint is shared by Robson and Stockwell (2005, p.53), who assert that ‘it has long been recognised that reading is creative’, because the act of reading is more than a simple act of ‘decoding’ words on a page. They point to the ‘cultural associations and personal resonances’ of each word, and the way in which readers often approach the act of reading in different ways, often noticing and remembering ‘certain parts of a text more readily than others’. The same text can invoke different meaning in different readers in that reading can be seen as a creative act of interpretation. Robson and Stockwell conclude that the ‘texture of text is a matter of creative reading as well as the material textuality of the language’ (2005, p.54). Therefore, adopting this interpretation allows for the literacy practice of silent reading to be seen to involve an element of creativity. Words on a page are taken by the reader and, through an act of creativity, ‘mentally engineered into a rich world’ (Robson and Stockwell, 2005, p.55)

Papen and Tusting’s approach to creativity would seem to allow for creativity to be identified in literacy practices in almost all contexts, both informal and formal. By contrast, Carter (2004, p.170) claims to have ‘clear grounds’ for arguing that some contexts are more ‘creativity-prone than others’. This would appear to contradict Papen and Tusting’s argument. However, whilst Carter does not claim that all literacy practices in all contexts can be considered creative, he concedes that creativity can be found in professional contexts and practices ‘not normally seen as sites for creative language use’ (Carter, 2004, p.188). Carter is quick to point out that creativity in these contexts is different from the creativity in informal contexts. He ultimately concludes that the contexts ‘in which language can be co-constructed and co-created are more likely to be informal’ (Carter, 2004, p.209). Rather than viewing all literacy practices and social contexts as inherently creative, Carter is an exponent of a more realistic view of creativity existing on a cline and thus being found in varying degrees according to the context.

Papen and Tusting’s approach to creativity may be considered to be a socio-cultural approach albeit broader than other socio-cultural theories. The difficulty with the socio-cultural approach in relation to Papen and Tusting’s claim of inherent creativity in all literacy practices is that a practice considered to be creative in one practice may not be considered creative in another culture. This, then, would imply that all literacy practices cannot be considered to be creative. Carter (2004, p.42) draws attention to the cultural differences between Eastern and Western societies with regard to creativity. He notes that ‘notions of creativity within Eastern cultures are more process-orientated’ and ‘Eastern models of creating describe realisations as a “being” or a “becoming” rather than a “doing” or a “making”’. There is a lower value attached to originality and innovation in Eastern cultures than in Western cultures. It is clear from this that there are significant differences in cultural definitions of creativity, which means that practices viewed as creative in Eastern cultures would not be viewed as such in Western cultures and vice versa. Cultural values have a significant impact on whether practices can be viewed as creative or not.

The answer to the question of whether all literacy practices can be considered creative hinges considerably on the definition of creativity. Papen and Tusting’s assertion that creativity is inherent in all literacy practices can be true only if their broad interpretation of the term creativity as referring to all meaning-making is adopted, and, even then, some practices such as literal copying form a textbook would be difficult to define as actual creativity. When other models of creativity – for example the inherency and socio-cultural approached identified by Carter (2004) – are applied to an examination of creativity on literacy practices, it becomes clear that whilst a considerable number of literacy practices can be defined as creative, it would be wrong to conclude that all literacy practices can be considered creative. Maybin (2006, p.414) cautions of the delicate balance between ‘documenting and analysing vernacular kinds of language creativity… and sliding into the position that all meaning making is creative, and so, therefore, are all uses of language’. Whilst the inherency model of creativity is too narrow, the adoption of a definition of creativity that is too broad runs the risk of diluting ‘the concept to the extent that it is no longer useful’ (Swann, 2006, p.9).

Whilst a great number of literacy practices are creative, to assert that all literacy practices can be considered creative is to extend the notion of language creativity too far

References

Carter, R (2004) Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk, London, Routledge

Maybin, J (2006) “Locating creativity in texts and practices” in Maybin, J and Swann, J (2006), The Art of English: Everyday Creativity, Basingstoke/ Milton Keynes, Palgrave Macmillan in association with The Open University

Papen, U (2006) “Local literacy practices in Namibia: creativity and constraint” in Maybin, J and Swann, J (2006), The Art of English: Everyday Creativity, Basingstoke/ Milton Keynes, Palgrave Macmillan in association with The Open University

Papen, U and Tusting, K (2006) “Literacies, collaboration and context” in Maybin, J and Swann, J (2006), The Art of English: Everyday Creativity, Basingstoke/ Milton Keynes, Palgrave Macmillan in association with The Open University

Robson, M and Stockwell, P (2005) Language in Theory, London, Routledge

Swann, J (2006) “The Art of Everyday” in Maybin, J and Swann, J (2006), The Art of English: Everyday Creativity, Basingstoke/ Milton Keynes, Palgrave Macmillan in association with The Open University