Abraham, Anna. 2013. “The Promises and Perils of the Neuroscience of Creativity.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 246.Google Scholar

Abraham, Anna. 2016. “Gender and Creativity: An Overview of Psychological and Neuroscientific Literature.” Brain Imaging and Behaviour 10: 609–618.Google Scholar

Abraham, Anna. 2019a. “Creativity and the Social Brain.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Social Creativity Research, edited by Lebuda, Izabela and Glăveanu, Vlad P., 527–539. Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Abraham, Anna. 2019b. “The Neuropsychology of Creativity.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albert, Robert S. 1990. “Identity, Experience, and Career Choice among the Exceptionally Gifted and Eminent.” In Theory of Creativity, edited by Runco, Mark A. and Albert, Robert S., 13–34. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Amabile, Teresa M. 1996. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar

Arnaud, Pierre J. L. 2003. Les composés timbre-poste. Lyon: Lyon University Press.Google Scholar

Arndt-Lappe, Sabine, Braun, Angelika, Moulin, Claudine, and Winter-Froemel, Esme, eds. 2018. Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 2013. “Competition and the Lexicon.” To appear in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of La Società di Linguistica Italiana. Prepublication paper.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 2020. “-less and -free.” In Complex Words: Advances in Morphology, edited by Körtvélyessy, Lívia and Štekauer, Pavol, 55–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baas, Matthijs. 2019. “In the Mood for Creativity.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 257–272. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baas, Matthijs, de Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Nijstad, Bernard A.. 2008. “A Meta-analysis of 25 Years of Mood-Creativity Research: Hedonic Tone, Activation, or Regulatory Focus?” Psychological Bulletin 134, no. 6: 779–806.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. “Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, edited by Booij, Geert E. and van Marle, Jaap, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. “On Frequency, Transparency, and Productivity.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1992, edited by Booij, Geert E. and van Marle, Jaap, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1994a. “Derivational Productivity and Text Typology.” Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1: 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1994b. “Productivity in Language Production.” Language and Cognitive Processes 9: 447–469.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word Frequency Distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald and Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. “Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study.” Linguistics 29, no. 5: 801–844.Google Scholar

Baer, John. 2020. “Domains of Creativity.” In Encyclopedia of Creativity, 3rd ed., edited by Pritzker, Steven and Runco, Mark, 377–382. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Baer, John and Kaufman, James C.. 2005. “Bridging Generality and Specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity.” Roeper Review 27: 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baer, John and Kaufman, James C.. 2008. “Gender Differences in Creativity.” The Journal of Creative Behaviour 42, no. 2: 75–105.Google Scholar

Bagasheva, Alexandra and Stamenov, Christo. 2013. “The Ludic Aspect of Lexical Inventiveness.” Quaderns de Filologia: Estudis lingüístics XVIII: 71–82.Google Scholar

Barbot, Baptiste and Eff, Henry. 2019. “The Genetic Basis of Creativity: A Multivariate Approach.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 132–147. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Batey, Mark. 2012. “The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework.” Creativity Research Journal 24, no. 1: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 2009. “Competition in English word formation.” In The Handbook of the History of English, edited by van Kemenade, Anns and Los, Bettelou, 177–198. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Beaty, Roger E., Benedek, Mathias, Silvia, Paul J., and Schacter, Daniel L.. 2016. “Creative Cognition and Brain Network Dynamics.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20, no. 2: 87–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beghetto, Ronald A. 2019. “Creativity in Classrooms.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 587–606. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bell, Melanie and Schäfer, Martin. 2016. “Modelling Semantic Transparency.” Morphology 26: 157–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benczes, Reka. 2005. “Creative Noun-Noun Compounds.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 250–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benczes, Reka. 2006. Creative Compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun-Noun Combinations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Benedek, Mathias and Jauk, Emanuel. 2019. “Creativity and Cognitive Control.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 200–223. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Benedek, Mathias, Jauk, Emanuel, Sommer, Markus, Arendasy, Martin, and Neubauer, Aljoscha C.. 2014. “Intelligence, Creativity and Cognitive Control: The Common and Differential Involvement of Executive Functions in Intelligence and Creativity.” Intelligence 46: 73–83.Google Scholar

Benjamini, Yoav and Yosef, Hochberg. 1995. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 57(1): 289–300.Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander. 2019. “What, If Anything, Is Linguistic Creativity?” Gestalt Theory 41, no. 2: 173–184.Google Scholar

Berko-Gleason, Jean. 1958. “The Child’s Learning of English Morphology.” Word 14: 50–170.Google Scholar

Beversdorf, David Q. 2019. “Neuropsychopharmacological Regulation of Performance on Creativity-Related Tasks.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 55–63.Google Scholar

Bonferroni, Carlo E. 1936. “Teoria statistica delle classi e calcolo delle probabilità.” Pubblicazioni del R Istituto Superiore di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali di Firenze 8: 3–62.Google Scholar

Boot, Nathalie, Baas, Matthijs, van Gaal, Simon, Cools, Roshan, and De Dreu, Carsten K. W.. 2017. “Creative Cognition and Dopaminergic Modulation of Fronto-Striatal Networks: Integrative Review and Research Agenda.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 78: 13–23.Google Scholar

Borgwaldt, Susanne and Lüttenberg, Dina. 2010. “Semantic Transparency of Compound Nouns in Native and Non-native Speakers.” Poster presentation at the 14th Morphological Meeting, Budapest, May 13–16, 2010.Google Scholar

Bourque, Yves S. 2014. “Toward a Typology of Semantic Transparency: The Case of French Compounds.” PhD diss., University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Carroll, John M. and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 1975. “Prolegomena to a Functional Theory of word formation.” In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, edited by Grossman, Robin E., San, Jim L., and Vance, Timothy J., 47–62. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald. 2015a. “Foreword.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, Rodney H.. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald. 2015b. Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk, 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Casey, B. J., Getz, Sarah, and Galvan, Adriana. 2008. “The Adolescent Brain.” Developmental Review 28, no. 1: 62–77.Google Scholar

Chang, Yu-Lin, Chen, Hsueh-Chih, Wu, I.-Chen, Chang, Jen-Ho, and Wu, Ching-Lin. 2017. “Developmental Trends of Divergent Thinking and Feeling across Different Grades for Taiwanese Adolescence between 1990’s and 2010’s.” Thinking Skills and Creativity 23: 112–128.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1974. “Human Nature: Justice versus Power (a dialogue with M. Foucault).” In Reflexive Water, edited by Elders, F.. London: Souvenir Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Christensen, Alexander P., Cotter, Katherine N., and Silvia, Paul J.. 2019. “Reopening Openness to Experience: A Network Analysis of Four Openness to Experience Inventories.” Journal of Personality Assessment 101, no. 6: 574–588.Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Cook, Guy. 2000. Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Costello, Fintan J. and Keane, Mark T.. 1996. Constraints on Conceptual Combination: A Theory of Polysemy in Noun-Noun Combinations. Departmental Technical Report. Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar

Cotter, Katherine N., Christensen, Alexander P., and Silvia, Paul J.. 2019. “Creativity’s Role in Everyday Life.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 640–652. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cramond, Bonnie, Matthews-Morgan, Juanita, Bandalos, Deborah, and Zuo, Li. 2005. “A Report on the 40-Year Follow-Up of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and Well in the New Millennium.” Gifted Child Quarterly 49, no. 4: 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cropley, Arthur J. 2000. “Defining and Measuring Creativity: Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?” Roeper Review 23, no. 2: 72–79.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihályi, Mihály. 1990. “The Domain of Creativity.” In Theories of Creativity, edited by Runco, Marc A. and Albert, Robert S., vol. 115, 190–212. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1999. “Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity.” In Handbook of Creativity, edited by Sternberg, Robert J., 313–335. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

D’Agostino, Fred. 1984. “Chomsky on Creativity.” Synthese 58: 85–117.Google Scholar

Dal, Georgette and Namer, Fiometta. 2018. “Playful Nonce-Formations in French: Creativity and Productivity.” In Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity and Ludicity, edited by Arndt-Lappe, Sabine, Braun, Angelika, Moulin, Claudine, and Winter-Froemel, Esme, 203–228. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Deshors, Sandra, Götz, Sandra, and Laporte, Samantha, eds. 2018. Rethinking Linguistic Creativity in Non-Native Englishes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dienes, Zoltan and McLatchie, Neil. 2018. “Four Reasons to Prefer Bayesian Analyses over Significance Testing.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25: 207–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dokulil, Miloš. 1962. Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Praha: ČAV.Google Scholar

Downing, Pamela. 1977. “On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns.” Language 53: 810–842.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2005. “word formation in Natural Morphology.” In Handbook of word formation, edited by Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle, 267–284. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

El-Bialy, Rowan, Gagné, Christina L., and Spalding, Thomas L.. 2013. “Processing of English Compounds Is Sensitive to the Constituents’ Semantic Transparency.” Mental Lexicon 8, no. 1: 75–95.Google Scholar

Eysenck, Hans J. 1994. “The Measurement of Creativity.” In Dimensions of Creativity, edited by Boden, Margaret A., 199–242. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fernandez-Dominguez, Jesus. 2009. Productivity in English word formation: An Approach to N+N Compounding. Pieterlen: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Finin, Timothy W. 1980. The Semantic Interpretation of Compound Nominals. University of Illinois, Urbana, Coordinated Science Laboratory, Report T-96.Google Scholar

Fink, Andreas, Benedek, Mathias, Unterrainer, Human-F., Papousek, Ilona, and Weiss, Elisabeth M.. 2014. “Creativity and Psychopathology: Are There Similar Mental Processes Involved in Creativity and in Psychosis-Proneness?” Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1211.Google Scholar

Fischer, E. 2000. Linguistic Creativity. Exercises in ‘Philosophical Therapy’. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Florida, Richard L. 2006. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Forbes, J. Benjamin and Domm, Donald R.. 2004. “Creativity and Productivity: Resolving the Conflict.” SAM Advanced Management Journal 69, no. 2: 4.Google Scholar

Forgeard, Marie. 2019. “Creativity and Healing.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J., 319–332. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fox, Kieran C. R. and Beaty, Roger E.. 2019. “Mind-Wandering as Creative Thinking: Neural, Psychological and Theoretical Considerations.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 123–130.Google Scholar

Frisson, Steven, Niswander-Klement, Elizabeth, and Pollatsek, Alexander. 2008. “The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing of English Compound Words.” British Journal of Psychology 99, no. 1: 87–107.Google Scholar

Gabelentz, Georg von der. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Gabora, Liane. 2019. “Creativity: Linchpin in the Quest for a Viable Theory of Cultural Evolution.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 77–83.Google Scholar

Gagné, Christina L. 2017. “Psycholinguistic Approaches to Morphology.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, edited by Aronoff, Mark. Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar

Gagné, Christina L. and Shoben, Edward J.. 1997. “Influence of Thematic Relations on the Comprehension of Modifier-Noun Combinations.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1: 71–87.Google Scholar

Gagné, Christina L. and Spalding, Thomas L.. 2009. “Constituent Integration during the Processing of Compound Words: Does It Involve the Use of Relational Structures?” Journal of Memory and Language 60: 20–35.Google Scholar

Gagné, Christina L. and Spalding, Thomas L.. 2014. “Conceptual Composition: The Role of Relational Competition in the Comprehension of Modifier-Noun Phrases and Noun-Noun Compounds.” The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 59: 97–130.Google Scholar

Gagne, Christina L., Spalding, Thomas L., and Nisbet, Kelly A.. 2016. “Processing English Compounds: Investigating Semantic Transparency.” SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13, no. 2: 2–22.Google Scholar

Gajda, Aleksandra, Karwowski, Maciej, and Beghetto, Ronald A.. 2017. “Creativity and Academic Achievement: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Educational Psychology 109, no. 2: 269–299.Google Scholar

Galton, Francis. 1869. Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences, vol. 27. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Gervás, Pablo. 2010. “Engineering Linguistic Creativity: Bird Flight and Jet Planes.” In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010. Second Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic Creativity, 23–30. Los Angeles: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2010. “Paradigms in the Study of Creativity: Introducing the Perspective of Cultural Psychology.” New Ideas in Psychology 28, no. 1: 79–93.Google Scholar

Glăveanu, Vlad Petre. 2013. “Rewriting the Language of Creativity: The Five A’s Framework.” Review of General Psychology 17, no. 1: 69–81.Google Scholar

Glăveanu, Vlad Petre and Kaufman, James C.. 2019. “Creativity: A Historical Perspective.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 9–26. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gleitman, Lila R. and Gleitman, Henry. 1970. Phrase and Paraphrase: Some Innovative Uses of Language. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar

González Restrepo, Karen J., Arias-Castro, Cristian C., and López-Fernández, Verónica. 2019. “A Theoretical Review of Creativity Based on Age.” Papeles del Psicólogo/Psychologist Papers 40, no. 2: 125–132.Google Scholar

Guilford, Joy P. 1950. “Creativity.” American Psychologist 5, no. 9: 444–454.Google Scholar

Guilford, Joy P. 1956. “Structure of Intellect.” Psychological Bulletin 53: 267–293.Google Scholar

Guilford, Joy P. 1986. Creative Talents: Their Nature, Uses and Development. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd.Google Scholar

Hall, Geoff. 2015. “Literary Stylistics and Creativity.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, R. H., 206–217, Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hamawand, Zeki. 2011. Morphology in English. Word Formation in Cognitive Grammar. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. “On System Pressure Competing with Economic Motivation.” In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, edited by MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej, and Moravcsik, Edith, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hocevar, Dennis. 1981. “Measurement of Creativity: Review and Critique.” Journal of Personality Assessment 45, no. 5: 450–464.Google Scholar

Hohenhaus, Peter. 2007. “How to Do (Even More) Things with Nonce Words (Other than Naming).” In Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts, edited by Munat, Judith, 15–38. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Horecký, Ján. 1983. Vývin a teória jazyka [The Development and a Theory of Language]. Bratislava: SPN.Google Scholar

Horecký, Ján, Buzássyová, Klára, Bosák, Ján. 1989. Dynamika slovnej zásoby súčasnej slovenčiny [Dynamics of the Wordstock of the Present-Day Slovak]. Bratislava: Veda.Google Scholar

Hrubovčák, Matúš. 2016. “A Sociolinguistic Research into word formation Strategies.” Language Use and Language Acquisition, B.A.S. 22: 145–152.Google Scholar

Hunter, Samuel T., Bedell, Katrina E., and Mumford, Michael D.. 2007. “Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review.” Creativity Research Journal 19, no. 1: 69–90.Google Scholar

Ivancovsky, Tal, Kleinmintz, Oded, Lee, Joo, Kurman, Jenny, and Shamay‐Tsoory, Simone G.. 2018. “The Neural Underpinnings of Cross-Cultural Differences in Creativity.” Human Brain Mapping 39, no. 11: 4493–4508.Google Scholar

Janovcová, Lenka. 2015. “The Influence of Cognitive Abilities on Compound-Interpretation.” PhD diss., P. J. Safarik University, Kosice.Google Scholar

Jauk, Emanuel. 2019. “A Bio-Psycho-Behavioral Model of Creativity.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 1–6.Google Scholar

Ji, Hongbo, Gagné, Christina L., and Spalding, Thomas L.. 2011. “Benefits and Costs of Lexical Decomposition and Semantic Integration during the Processing of Transparent and Opaque English Compounds.” Journal of Memory and Language 65: 406–430.Google Scholar

Jones, Rodney H. 2015a. “Creativity and Discourse Analysis.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, Rodney H., 61–77. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jones, Rodney H., ed. 2015b. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity. Abingdon/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Juhasz, Barbara J. 2007. “The Influence of Semantic Transparency on Eye Movements during English Compound Word Recognition.” In Eye Movements: A Window on Mind and Brain, edited by van Gompel, Roger P. G., 373–390. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Jung, Rex E. and Chohan, Muhammad O.. 2019. “Three Individual Difference Constructs, One Converging Concept: Adaptive Problem Solving in the Human Brain.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 163–168.Google Scholar

Jurčová, Marta and Szobiová, Eva. 2008. Torranceho figurálny test tvorivého myslenia. Príručka [Torrance Figural Test of Creative Thinking. A Manual]. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostika.Google Scholar

Kampylis, Panagiotis G. and Valtanen, Juri. 2010. “Redefining Creativity – Analyzing Definitions, Collocations and Consequences.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 44, no. 3: 191–214.Google Scholar

Karwowski, Maciej, Dul, Jan, Gralewski, Jacek, Jauk, Emanuel, Jankowska, Dorota M., Gajda, Aleksandra, Chruszczewski, Michael H., and Benedek, Mathias. 2016. “Is Creativity without Intelligence Possible? A Necessary Condition Analysis.” Intelligence 57: 105–117.Google Scholar

Kaufman, James C. and Beghetto, Ronald A.. 2009. “Beyond Big and Little: The Four C Model of Creativity.” Review of General Psychology 13, no. 1: 1–12.Google Scholar

Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J.. 2019. “Preface.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J.. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaufman, Scott Barry, Quilty, Lena C., Grazioplene, Rachael G., Hirsh, Jacob B., Gray, Jeremy R., Peterson, Jordan B., and DeYoung, Colin G.. 2016. “Openness to Experience and Intellect Differentially Predict Creative Achievement in the Arts and Sciences.” Journal of Personality 84, no. 2: 248–258.Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2016. “Deliberate Creativity and Formulaic Language Use.” In “Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, Perspectives in Pragmatics,” edited by K. Allan et al. Special issue of Philosophy & Psychology 9: 3–20.Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan. 2019. English as a Lingua Franca: The Pragmatic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kenny, Dorothy. 2001. Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-Based Study. St. Jerome.Google Scholar

Keune, Karen. 2012. “Explaining Register and Sociolinguistic Variation in the Lexicon: Corpus Studies on Dutch.” PhD diss., LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar

Keune, Karen, van Hout, Roeland, and Baayen, Harald R.. 2006. “Socio-Geographic Variation in Morphological Productivity in Spoken Dutch: A Comparison of Statistical Techniques.” In Actes des 8es journées internationales d’analyse statistique des données textuelles, vol. 2, edited by Viprey, J.-M., 571–580. Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyung Hee. 2005. “Can Only Intelligent People Be Creative? A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Secondary Gifted Education 16, no. 2–3: 57–66.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyung Hee. 2006. “Is Creativity Unidimensional or Multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.” Creativity Research Journal 18, no. 3: 251–259.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyung Hee. 2017. “The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking – Figural or Verbal: Which One Should We Use?” Creativity 4, no. 2: 302–321.Google Scholar

Kim, Kyung Hee, Cramond, Bonnie, and Vantassel-Baska, Joyce. 2010. “The Relationship between Creativity and Intelligence.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert, 395–412. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kleibeuker, Sietske W., Koolschijn, Cédric M. P., Jolles, Dietsje, De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Crone, Eveline A.. 2013. “The Neural Coding of Creative Idea Generation across Adolescence and Early Adulthood.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7, no. 905: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kleibeuker, Sietske W., De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Crone, Eveline A.. 2016. “The Development of Creative Cognition across Adolescence: Distinct Trajectories for Insight and Divergent Thinking.” Developmental Science 16, no. 1: 2–12.Google Scholar

Kleinmintz, Oded M., Ivancovsky, Tal, and Shamay-Tsoory, Simone G.. 2019. “The Two-Fold Model of Creativity: The Neural Underpinnings of the Generation and Evaluation of Creative Ideas.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 131–138.Google Scholar

Klembárová, Eva. 2012. “Contrastive Analysis of word formation in Children of Different Age.” MA thesis, P. J. Šafárik University, Košice.Google Scholar

Körtvélyessy, Lívia. 2010. Vplyv sociolingvistických faktorov na produktivitu v slovotvorbe [On the Influence of Sociolinguistic Factors upon Productivity in word formation]. Prešov: Slovacontact.Google Scholar

Körtvélyessy, Lívia and Štekauer, Pavol. 2014. “Derivation in a Social Context.” In The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, edited by Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol, 407–423. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Körtvélyessy, Lívia, Štekauer, Pavol, and Zimmermann, Július. 2015. “word formation Strategies: Semantic Transparency vs. Formal Economy.” In Semantics of Complex Words, edited by Bauer, Laurie, Körtvélyessy, Lívia, and Štekauer, Pavol, 85–114. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Körtvélyessy, Lívia, Štekauer, Pavol, and Kačmár, Pavol. 2020. “On the Influence of Creativity upon the Interpretation of Complex Words.” The Mental Lexicon 15(1): 142–160.Google Scholar

Körtvélyessy, Lívia, Štekauer, Pavol, and Kačmár, Pavol. 2021. “On the Role of Creativity in the Formation of New Complex Words.” Linguistics 59(4): 1017–1055.Google Scholar

Kuznetsova, Polina, Chen, Jianfu, and Choi, Yejin. 2013. “Understanding and Quantifying Creativity in Lexical Composition.” In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1246–1258. Seattle: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Ladányi, Mária. 2000. “Productivity, Creativity and Analogy in Word Formation (WF): Derivational Innovations in Hungarian Poetic Language.” In Approaches to Hungarian: Papers from the Pécs conference, vol. 7, edited by Alberti, Gábor and Kenesei, Istvaìn, 73–90. Szeged: JATEPress. http://ladanyi.web.elte.hu/derivational_innovations.pdf.Google Scholar

Lamb, Sydney. 1999. Pathways of the Brain. The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Langlotz, Andreas. 2015. “Language, Creativity and Cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, Rodney, 40–60. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Lees, Robert B. 1970. “Problems in the Grammatical Analysis of English Nominal Compounds.” In Progress in Linguistics, edited by Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl E., 174–186. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Leopold, Werner. 1930. “Polarity in Language.” In Curme Volume of Linguistics Studies, 102–109. Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press.Google Scholar

Levi, J. N. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Libben, Gary. 2015. “word formation in Psycholinguistics and Neurocognitive Research.” In word formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, vol. 1, edited by Müller, Peter O., Ohnheiser, Peter, Olsen, Susan, and Rainer, Franz, 203–217. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Libben, Gary, Gibson, Martha, Yoon, Yeo Bom, and Sandra, Dominiek. 2003. “Compound Fracture: The Role of Semantic Transparency and Morphological Headedness.” Brain and Language 84: 50–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. “Compounding in English.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 4, no. 1: 79–96.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 2010. Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol, eds. 2009. Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol, eds. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lindsay, Mark. 2011. “Self-Organization in the Lexicon: Morphological Productivity as Competition.” Talk presented at the LSA Summer Institute Workshop: Challenges of Complex Morphology to Morphological Theory, University of Colorado at Boulder, CO, July 27, 2011.Google Scholar

Lindsay, Mark and Aronoff, Mark. 2013. “Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems.” In Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7, edited by Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles, and Tseng, Jesse, 133–153. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Lubart, Todd, Glăveanu, Vlad P., de Vries, Herie, Camargo, Ana, and Storme, Martin. 2019. “Cultural Perspectives on Creativity.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J., 421–447. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Luce, Robert Duncan. 1959. Individual Choice Behaviour. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 2012. “The Logic of the Unified Model.” In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by Gass, Susan and Mackey, Alison, 211–227. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 2014. “Conclusions: Competition across Time.” In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, edited by MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukow, Andrej, and Moravcsik, Edith, 364–386. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej, and Moravscik, Edith, eds. 2014. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Marchand, Hans. 1960. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English word formation. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Marchand, Hans. 1965a. “The Analysis of Verbal Nexus Substantive.” Indogermanische Forschungen 70: 51–71.Google Scholar

Marchand, Hans. 1965b. “On the Analysis of Substantive Compounds and Suffixal Derivatives Not Containing a Verbal Element.” Indogermanische Forschungen 70: 117–145.Google Scholar

Marchand, Hans. 1974. Studies in Syntax and word formation. Edited by Kastovsky, D.. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar

Marelli, Marco and Luzzatti, Claudio. 2012. “Frequency Effects in the Processing of Italian Nominal Compounds: Modulation of Headedness and Semantic Transparency.” Journal of Memory and Language 66, no. 4: 644–664.Google Scholar

Martinet, André. 1955. Economie des changements phonétiques. Traité de phonologie diachronique. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar

Marty, Anton. 1908. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Mattiello, Elisa. 2013. Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English. Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mattiello, Elisa. 2018. “Paradigmatic Morphology Splinters, Combining Forms and Secreted Affixes.” SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 15, no. 1: 2–22.Google Scholar

Maybin, Janet and Swann, Joan. 2007. “Everyday Creativity in Language: Textuality, Contextuality and Critique.” Applied Linguistics 28: 497–517.Google Scholar

Miall, David S. 2015. “Literariness.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, Rodney H., 191–205. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith. 2014. “Introduction.” In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, edited by MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej, and Moravcsik, Edith, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Motsch, W. 1970. “Analyse von Komposita mit zwei nominalen Elementen.” In Progress in Linguistics, edited by Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl E., 208–223. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Müller, Peter O., Ohnheiser, Ingeborg, Olsen, Susan, and Rainer, Franz, eds. 2015/2016. word formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar

Munat, Judith. 2007. “Lexical Creativity as a Marker of Style in Science Fiction and Children’s Literature.” In Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts, edited by Munat, Judith, 163–185. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Murphy, Gregory L. 1988. “Comprehending Complex Concepts.” Cognitive Science 12: 529–562.Google Scholar

Newman, Matthew L., Groom, Carla J., Handelman, Lori D., and Pennebaker, James W.. 2008. “Gender Differences in Language Use: An Analysis of 14,000 Text Samples.” Discourse Processes 45, no. 3: 211–236.Google Scholar

Onsman, Harry J. 1982. “Creativity and Linguistic Theory. A Study of the Creative Aspect of Language.” MA thesis, University of Tasmania.Google Scholar

Pagnani, A. R. 2011. “Gender Differences.” In Encyclopedia of Creativity, 2nd ed., edited by Runko, Mark A. and Pritzker, Steven R., 551–557. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar

Palmiero, Massimiliano, Nakatani, Chie, Raver, Daniel, Belardinelli, Marta Olivetti, and van Leeuwen, Cees. 2010. “Abilities within and across Visual and Verbal Domains: How Specific Is Their Influence on Creativity?” Creativity Research Journal 22, no. 4: 369–377.Google Scholar

Palmiero, Massimiliano, Di Giacomo, Dina, and Passafiume, Domenico. 2012. “Creativity and Dementia: A Review.” Cognitive Processing 13, no. 3: 193–209.Google Scholar

Pepper, Steve and Arnaud, Pierre. 2020. “Absolutely PHAB. Towards a General Model of Associative Relations.” In “Semantics and Psychology of Complex Words,” edited by Christina L. Gagné and Thomas L. Spalding. Special issue of The Mental Lexicon 15, no. 1: 100–120.Google Scholar

Pham, Hien and Baayen, R. Harald. 2013. “Semantic Relations and Compound Transparency: A Regression Study in CARIN Theory.” Psihologija 46, no. 4: 455–478.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity. Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 2003. word formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pleskac, Timothy J. 2015. “Decision and Choice: Luce’s Choice Axiom.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, edited by Wright, James D., 895–900. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Plucker, Jonathan A. and Makel, Matthew C.. 2010. “Assessment of Creativity.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J., 48–73. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Plucker, Jonathan A., Beghetto, Ronald A., and Dow, Gayle T.. 2004. “Why Isn’t Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls and Future Directions in Creativity Research.” Educational Psychologist 39, no. 2: 83–96.Google Scholar

Plucker, Jonathan A., Makel, Matthew C., and Qian, Meihua. 2019. “Assessment of Creativity.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 44–68. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pollatsek, Alexander and Hyönä, Jukka. 2005. “The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing of Finnish Compound Words.” Language and Cognitive Processes 20, no. 1: 261–290.Google Scholar

Prinzl, Marlies G. 2017. “Linguistic Creativity in (Re)translation: A Corpus-Based Study of Thjomas Mann’s ‘Der Tod in Venedig’ and Its English versions.” PhD diss., UCL.Google Scholar

Rainer, Franz. 1983. Spanische Wordbildungslehre. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Rainer, Franz. 1988. “Towards a Theory of Blocking: The Case of Italian and German Quality Nouns.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1988, edited by Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 155–185. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Ratul, Tanvir. 2019. “Creativity: Concepts, Competition, Coexistence.” In Creativity in Language, edited by Ratul, Tanvir. Newcastle: Pre-Publication Preface.Google Scholar

Reddy, Siva, McCarthy, Diana, and Manandhar, Suresh. 2011. “An Empirical Study on Compositionality in Compound Nouns.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Processing, 210–218.Google Scholar

Reiter-Palmon, Roni, Mitchell, Kevin S., and Royston, Ryan. 2019. “Improving Creativity in Organizational Settings: Applying Research on Creativity to Organizations.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 515–545. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ren, Zhiting, Yang, Wenjing, and Qiu, Jiang. 2019. “Neural and Genetic Mechanisms of Creative Potential.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 40–46.Google Scholar

Rhodes, Mel. 1961. “An Analysis of Creativity.” The Phi Delta Kappan 42, no. 7: 305–310.Google Scholar

Ritter, Simone M. and Mostert, Nel. 2017. “Enhancement of Creative Thinking Skills Using a Cognitive-Based Creativity Training.” Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 1, no. 3: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, Douglas. 2015. “Creativity and Translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, Rodney H., 278–290. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rohrer, C. 1966. “Review of Lees (1960).” Indogermanische Forschungen 71: 161–170.Google Scholar

Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 2008. “Word Creation: Definition, Function, Typology.” In Variation and Change in Morphology, edited by Rainer, Franz, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, and Luschützky, Hans, 201–216. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 2012. “Blending between Grammar and Universal Cognitive Principles: Evidence from German, Farsi and Chinese.” In Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending, edited by Renner, Vincent, Mantiez, François, and Arnaud, Pierree, 115–144. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A. 1996. “Personal Creativity: Definition and Developmental Issues.” New Directions for Child Development 72: 3–30.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A. 2008. “Commentary: Divergent Thinking Is Not Synonymous with Creativity.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts 2, no. 2: 93–96.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A. 2014. “‘Big C, Little c’ Creativity as a False Dichotomy: Reality Is Not Categorical.” Creativity Research Journal 26, no. 1: 131–132.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A. and Acar, Selcuk. 2012. “Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential.” Creativity Research Journal 24, no. 1: 66–75.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A. and Acar, Selcuk. 2019. “Divergent Thinking.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 224–254. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A. and Jaeger, Garrett J.. 2012. “The Standard Definition of Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 24, no. 1: 92–96.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A. and Kim, Daehyun. 2013. “Four Ps of Creativity and Recent Updates.” In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, edited by Carayannis, Elias G., 755–759. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A., Cramond, Bonnie, and Pagnani, Alexander R.. 2010a. “Gender and Creativity.” In Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. Volume 1: Gender Research in General and Experimental Psychology, edited by Chrisler, Joan C. and McCreary, Donald R., 343–357. New York/Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Runco, Mark A., Millar, Garnet, Acar, Selcuk, and Cramond, Bonnie. 2010b. “Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as Predictors of Personal and Public Achievement: A Fifty-Year Follow-Up.” Creativity Research Journal 22, no. 4: 361–368.Google Scholar

Ruth, Jan-Erik and Birren, James E.. 1985. “Creativity in Adulthood and Old Age: Relations to Intelligence, Sex and Mode of Testing.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 8, no. 1: 99–109.Google Scholar

Säily, Tanja. 2011. “Variation in Morphological Productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and Methodological Considerations.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7, no. 1: 119–141.Google Scholar

Sampson, Geoffrey. 2016. “Two Ideas of Creativity.” In Evidence, Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, edited by Hinton, Martin, 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Sandra, Dominiek. 1990. “On the Representation and Processing of Compound Words: Automatic Access to Constituent Morphemes Does Not Occur.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A 42, no. 3, 529–567.Google Scholar

Santana-Lario, Juan and Valera, Salvador, eds. 2017. Competing Patterns in English Affixation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Schäfer, Martin. 2018. The Semantic Transparency of English Compound Nouns. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

Schultink, Henk. 1961. “Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomen.” Forum der letteren 2: 110–125.Google Scholar

Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shoben, Edward J. 1991. “Predicating and Nonpredicating Combinations.” In The Psychology of Word Meanings, edited by Schwanenflugel, Paula J., 117–135. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Silvia, Paul J. 2015. “Intelligence and Creativity Are Pretty Similar After All.” Educational Psychology Review 27, no. 4: 599–606.Google Scholar

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2000. “Creativity: Cognitive, Personal, Developmental and Social Aspects.” American Psychologist 55, no. 1: 151–158.Google Scholar

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2012. “Creative Productivity and Aging.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Adulthood and Aging, edited by Whitbourne, Susan Krauss and Sliwinski, Martin J., 477–496. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2019a. “Creative Genius.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J., 655–676. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2019b. “Creativity and Psychopathology: The Tenacious Mad-Genius Controversy Updated.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 17–21.Google Scholar

Simonton, Dean Keith. 2019c. “Creativity’s Role in Society.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 462–480. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, Gudmund J. W. and Carlsson, Ingegerd. 1983. “Creativity in Early and Middle School Years.” International Journal of Behavioral Development 6: 167–195.Google Scholar

Stein, Morris I. 1953. “Creativity and Culture.” The Journal of Psychology 36, no. 2: 311–322.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English word formation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol. 2005a. Meaning Predictability in word formation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol. 2005b. “Onomasiological Approach to word formation.” In Handbook of word formation, edited by Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol. 2009. “Meaning Predictability of Novel, Context-Free Compounds.” In Handbook of Compounding, edited by Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle, 272–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol. 2016. “Compounding from an Onomasiological Perspective.” In The Semantics of Compounding, edited by ten Hacken, Pius, 54–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol. 2017. “Competition in Natural Languages.” In Competing Patterns in English Affixation, edited by Santana-Lario, Juan and Valera, Salvador, 15–32. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle, eds. 2005. Handbook of word formation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol, Chapman, Don, Tomaščíková, Slávka, and Franko, Štefan. 2005. “word formation As Creativity within Productivity Constraints. Sociolinguistic Evidence.” Onomasiology Online 1–55.Google Scholar

Sternberg, Robert J. 2006. “The Nature of Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 18, no. 1: 87–98.Google Scholar

Sternberg, Robert J. and Kaufman, James C.. 2010. “Constraints on Creativity: Obvious and Not So Obvious. In Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J., 467–482. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sternberg, Robert J., Kaufman, James C., and Roberts, Anne M.. 2019. “The Relation of Creativity to Intelligence and Wisdom.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J., 337–352. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Swann, Joan, Pope, Robert, and Carter, Ronald. 2011. Creativity in Language and Literature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Takeuchi, Hikaru and Kawashima, Ryuta. 2019. “Implications of Large-Sample Neuroimaging Studies of Creativity Measured by Divergent Thinking.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 27: 139–145.Google Scholar

Tin, Tan Bee. 2015. “Creativity in Second-Language Learning.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, Rodney H., 433–451. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Toolan, Michael. 2015. “Poetry and Poetics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, edited by Jones, Rodney H., 231–247. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Torrance, Ellis P. 1966. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Norms, Technical Manual Research Edition—Verbal Tests, Forms A and B—Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.Google Scholar

Torrance, Ellis. P. 1974. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Norms, Technical Manual Research Edition—Verbal Tests, Forms A and B—Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.Google Scholar

Torrance, Ellis. P. 1987. Guidelines for Administration and Scoring/Comments on Using the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.Google Scholar

Torrance, Ellis. P. 1990. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Norms, Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.Google Scholar

Torrance, Ellis. P. 1998. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Norms, Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Marloes, Kroebergen, Evelyn H., Blom, Elma, and Leseman, Paul P. M.. 2018. “Bilingualism and Creativity: Towards a Situated Cognition Approach.” Journal of Creative Behavior 53, no. 2: 178–188.Google Scholar

Van Lint, Trudeke. 1982. “The Interpretation of Compound Nouns.” In Linguistics in the Netherlands, edited by Daalder, Saskia and Gerritsen, Marinel, 135–145. Amsterdam/Oxford: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Van Marle, Jaap. 1986. “The Domain Hypothesis: The Study of Rival Morphological Processes.” Linguistics 24: 601–627.Google Scholar

Vásquez, Camilla. 2019. Language, Creativity and Humour Online. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Vartanian, Oshin. 2019. “Neuroscience of Creativity.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, edited by Kaufman, James C. and Sternberg, Robert J. E., 148–172. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Vicentini, Alessandra. 2003. “The Economy Principle in Language.” Mots Palabras Words 3: 37–57.Google Scholar

Vizmuller-Zocco, Jana. 1985. “Linguistic Creativity and Word Formation.” Italica 62, no. 4: 305–310.Google Scholar

Vizmuller-Zocco, Jana. 1987. “Derivation, Creativity and Second Language Learning.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 43, no. 4: 718–730.Google Scholar

Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Love, Jonathan, Marsman, Maarten et al. 2017. “Bayesian Inference for Psychology. Part II: Example Applications with JASP.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25(1):1–19.Google Scholar

Ward, Thomas B. and Kennedy, Evan S.. 2017. “Creativity Research: More Studies, Greater Sophistication and the Importance of ‘Big’ Questions.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 51, no. 4: 285–288.Google Scholar

Weiner, Robert. 2000. Creativity and Beyond: Cultures, Values and Change. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Weisberg, Robert W. 1999. “Creativity and Knowledge: A Challenge to Theories.” In Handbook of Creativity, edited by Sternberg, Robert J., 226–250. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wong, Mungchen and Rotello, Caren. 2010. “Conjunction Errors and Semantic Transparency.” Memory and Cognition 38: 47–56.Google Scholar

Wu, Chi Hang, Cheng, Yim, Ip, Hoi Man, and McBride-Chang, Catherine. 2005. “Age Differences in Creativity: Task Structure and Knowledge Base.” Creativity Research Journal 17, no. 4: 321–326.Google Scholar

Wu, Xin, Yang, Wenjing, Tong, Dandan, Sun, Jiangzhou, Chen, Qunlin, Wei, Dongtao, Zhang, Qinglin, Zhang, Meng, and Qiu, Jiang. 2015. “A Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies on Divergent Thinking Using Activation Likelihood Estimation.” Human Brain Mapping 36, no. 7: 2703–2718.Google Scholar

Zawada, Britta Edelgard. 2005. “Linguistic Creativity and Mental Representation with Reference to Intercategorial Polysemy.” PhD diss., University of South Africa.Google Scholar

Zhu, Xiaojin, Xu, Zhiting, and Khot, Tushar. 2009. “How Creative Is Your Writing? A Linguistic Creativity Measure from Computer Science and Cognitive Psychology Perspectives.” In CALC ‘09: Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic Creativity, 87–93. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Zimmer, Karl E. 1972. “Appropriateness Conditions for Nominal Compounds.” Working Papers on Language Universals (Stanford University) 8: 3–20.Google Scholar

Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1994. “The Role of Semantic Transparency in the Processing and Representation of Dutch Compounds.” Language and Cognitive Processes 9: 341–368.Google Scholar