Meaning (metaphor)-based creativity in english language chick lit
Abstract
This article explores meaning-based creativity in English language chick lit, a contemporary genre of postfeminist fiction, focusing on the role of metaphor in the formation of creative neologisms. While lexical innovation has often been discussed in terms of form-based (morphological) creativity, the present study foregrounds the cognitive-semantic mechanisms that motivate formally creative coinages. Drawing on the distinction between form-based and meaning-based creativity, the article investigates how metaphor functions as a key source of semantic innovation underlying neologisms in English language chick lit. The study is based on a self-compiled corpus of 36 English language chick lit novels, from which 141 formally creative neologisms were extracted. The article adopts the framework of creative use of metaphor, identifying such mechanisms as the extension of conventional metaphorical mappings, the application of metaphors to targets they are not conventionally associated with, the interaction of metaphor with metonymy in a novel way, the alteration of metaphorical valence, and the introduction of additional detail. Through detailed qualitative analysis, the article demonstrates that meaning(metaphor)-based creativity in chick lit neologisms is not based on entirely novel conceptual mappings. Instead, it typically arises from the elaboration, recombination, or reorientation of entrenched metaphors, which are exploited for humorous, evaluative, and expressive purposes. The findings highlight the embodied and experiential grounding of metaphor-based neologisms and show how they contribute to characterisation, emotional engagement, and social critique. Overall, the study argues that chick lit provides a particularly fertile domain for observing the interplay between form-based and meaning-based creativity in contemporary English word formation.
Downloads
References
Zatsnyi, Yu., Pakhomova, H.O., & Zatsna V. Yu. (2004). Sotsiolinhvistychni aspekty vyvchennia slovnykovoho skladu suchasnoi anhliiskoi movy. Zaporizhzhia: ZNU.
Barnden, J. A. (2016). Mixed metaphor: its depth, its breadth, and a pretence-based approach. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing Metaphor (pp. 75–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.6.05bar.
Barnden, J. A., Glasbey, S. R., Lee, M. G., & Wallington, A. M. (2003). Domain-transcending mappings in a system for metaphorical reasoning. In Conference Companion to the 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2003) (pp. 57–61). Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bergs, A. (2018). Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist (Picasso): linguistic aberrancy from a constructional perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0025.
Brdar, M. (2018). Novel metonymies, wine and wineskins, old and new ones. Jezici i Culture u Vremenu i Prostoru, VII(1), 123–134.
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London & New York: Continuum.
Carter, R. (2016). Language and creativity: the art of common talk. London & New York: Routledge.
COCA – Corpus of contemporary American English. URL: English-Corpora: COCA. Accessed on 21.03.2026,
Collins, L. (1977). A name to conjure with: a discussion of the naming of new brands. European Journal of Marketing, 11(5), 337–363.
Eitelmann, M., & Haumann, D. (2022). Extravagant morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.
Fischer, R. (1998). Lexical change in present-day English. A corpus-based study of the motivation, institutionalization, and productivity of creative neologisms. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Fuoli, M., Littlemore, J., & Turner, S. (2021). Sunken ships and screaming banshees: metaphor and evaluation in film reviews. English Language and Linguistics, 26(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000046.
Harzewski, S. (2011). Chick lit and postfeminism. Virginia: University of Virginia Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/41955668.
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37 (364), 1043–1068.
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and construction grammar. Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0024.
Hoffmann, T. (2020). Speakers are creative, within limits: a response to Peter Uhrig. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2028.
Ibáñez, M.S., & Pérez Sobrino, P. (2024). Name it till you mean it: intersections between formal and semantic neological procedures in naming emerging pandemic objects in Spanish. Language and Communication, 99, 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2024.10.010.
Klosa-Kückelhaus, A. & Kernermann, I. (2021). Converging lexicography and neology. International Journal of Lexicography, 34(3), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecab018.
Koliopoulou, M., & Walker, J. (2024). Exploring creativity and extravagance: the case of double suffixation in English. Languages, 9(88). Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2226-471X/9/3/88. Accessed on 08.01.2026. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030088.
Kövecses, Z. (2019). Metaphorical creativity: the role of context. In W.H. Brekhus & G. Ignatow (Eds.,), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Sociology (pp. 212–225). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190273385.013.12.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Rivista di Linguistica, 15(2), 371–384.
Lensch, A. (2022). Diggers-out, leaf clearer-uppers and stayer-onner-for-nowers. On creativity and extravagance in English -er nominalisations. In M. Eitelmann & D. Haumann (Eds.), Extravagant Morphology: Studies in Rule-Bending, Pattern-Extending and Theory-Challenging Morphology. (p. 73–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Littlemore, J. (2022). On the creative use of metonymy. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00103.lit.
Littlemore, J., & Tagg, C. (2018). Metonymy and text messaging: a framework for understanding creative uses of metonymy. Applied Linguistics, 39, 481–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw018.
Littlemore, J., Turner, S., & Tuck, P. (2024). Creative metaphor, evaluation, and emotion in conversations about work. London & New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003262862.
Mattiello, E. (2017). Analogy in word-formation. A study of English neologisms and occasionalisms. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000397.
Missler, H. (2017). The cultural politics of chick lit: popular fiction, postfeminism and representation. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315626536.
Norde, M., & Trousdale, G. (2024). Creativity, paradigms and morphological constructions: evidence from Dutch pseudoparticiples. Linguistics, 9, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0194.
Pruvost, J., & Sablayrolles, J-F. (2003). Les néologismes. Paris: Presses Univeritaires de France.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092.
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.015.
Smith, V. (2021). Naming and framing: understanding the power of words across disciplines, domains, and modalities. N.Y.: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003051831.
ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL
Fielding, H. (1999). Bridget Jones: the edge of reason. London: Picador.
Fielding, H. (2014). Bridget Jones: mad about the boy. London: Vintage.
Keyes, M. (1997). Watermelon. London: Penguin.
Keyes, M. (2022). Again, Rachel. London: Penguin.
Kinsella, S. (2017). My no so perfect life. London: Penguin.
Kinsella, S. (2023). The burnout. London: Penguin.
