Identifying Creativity During Problem Solving Using Linguistic Features

REFERENCES

• Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2014). Assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 229–238. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4_. R package version 1.1-9. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
   Google Scholar
• Beketayev, K., & Runco, M. A. (2016). Scoring divergent thinking tests by computer with a semantics-based algorithm. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 210. doi:10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, N. D. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192–218. doi:10.1093/applin/amh043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, N. D. (2011). Humor scholarship and TESOL: Applying findings and establishing a research agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 134–159. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, R. (2016). Language and creativity: The art of common talk (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2004). Talking, creating: Interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 62–88. doi:10.1093/applin/25.1.62
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1227–1237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Muldner, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Idea generation in student writing: Computational assessments and links to successful writing. Written Communication, 33(3), 328–354. doi:10.1177/0741088316650178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dews, S., Kaplan, J., & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19(3), 347–367. doi:10.1080/01638539509544922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djikic, M., Oatley, K., & Peterson, J. B. (2006). The bitter-sweet labor of emoting: The linguistic comparison of writers and physicists. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 191–197. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1802_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas, D., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). Understanding fluency and originality: A latent variable perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 56–67. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Forgeard, M. (2008). Linguistic styles of eminent writers suffering from unipolar and bipolar mood disorder. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 81–92. doi:10.1080/10400410701842094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerrig, R. J., & Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1988). Beyond the lexicon: Creativity in language production. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(3), 1–19. doi:10.1207/s15327868ms0301_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Irony in talk among friends. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27. doi:10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. doi:10.3102/0013189X11413260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, L., Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The highest form of intelligence: Sarcasm increases creativity for both expressers and recipients. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 131, 162–177. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, J. (1996). The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(5), 613–634. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(95)00067-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kharkhurin, A. V. (2009). The role of bilingualism in creative performance on divergent thinking and invented alien creatures tests. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 59–71. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)2162-6057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharkhurin, A. V. (2010). Bilingual verbal and nonverbal creative behavior. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(2), 211–226. doi:10.1177/1367006910363060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharkhurin, A. V. (2012). Multilingualism and creativity. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-29. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
   Google Scholar
• Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. doi:10.1002/tesq.194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maimon, O. Z., & Horowitz, R. (1999). Sufficient conditions for inventive solutions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 29(3), 349–361. doi:10.1109/5326.777071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, R. A. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R. (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 499–515. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0258-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, G. D. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61(3f), 1075–1081. doi:10.2466/pms.1985.61.3f.1075
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (2013). Divergent thinking and creative potential. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(3), 483–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537–546. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(1), 213–221. doi:10.1177/001316449205200126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Skalicky, S., Berger, C. M., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Linguistic features of humor in academic writing. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 248–259.
   Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (1981). The machine-gun question: An example of conversational style. Journal of Pragmatics, 5(5), 383–397. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(81)90025-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veale, T. (2012). Exploding the creativity myth: The computational foundations of linguistic creativity. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, F., Peng, T., Peng, K., Zheng, S. X., & Liu, Z. (2016). The Semantic Network Model of creativity: Analysis of online social media data. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 268–274. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1195618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar