In this article, we consider the relationship between conceptual blending, creativity and morphological change, within the framework of Diachronic Construction Morphology (DCxM; Norde & Trousdale 2023). In particular, we suggest that a refinement to models of creativity in the literature might help to account better for different types of morphological change (Norde & Trousdale 2024). This is achieved via a contrastive analysis of two different sets of changes: (a) the creation of English libfixes (Zwicky 2010; Norde & Sippach 2019), e.g. snowmaggedon and spooktacular, and (b) the development of Dutch pseudoparticiples (Norde & Trousdale 2024), e.g. bebrild ‘bespectacled’ and ontstekkerd ‘with all plugs removed’.

Ever since its introduction by Christian Lehmann in 1982, the term ‘degrammaticalization’ has been the subject of much controversy. There has been considerable disagreement about what kind of phenomena the term refers to, and indeed if degrammaticalization exists at all. In this paper I will argue that degrammaticalization is not grammaticalization in reverse, but a separate kind of change worthy of study in its own right. The purpose of this paper will be to show how degrammaticalization changes are best identified, by using existing linguistic tests as diagnostics for establishing changes in the morphological status of certain degrammaticalization suspects, and for assessing the nature of the subchanges involved. One of the stock examples of degrammaticalization literature, i.e. the s-genitive in Swedish, will serve as a case study.