Without addressing the traditional problem of the link between langauge and reality, whether reality creates language or is it the other way around in particular philosophical problems.(In normal usage, it will be a false dichotomy since both are interdependent ) I will take language as a tool and also a container of our knowledge as a given, simply because of the inextricable link between both. If l had a statement that is nonsensical, then everyone can sense that l do not have the knowledge of the subject beforehand or even the subject doesn't exist in some cases.

Imagination can be thought of in two different manners, as recombination of our precious knowledge.
( but sometimes in religious discourse, we use language in a transcendental manner which is beyond our imagination or atleast intends to)
If we take this theory of imagination as being legitimate, we will have to suppose some sort of relative friction between previous ideas and also take knowledge building to be a slow process. This means that in order for us to understand free thought process, we will need to give up the false distinction between determinism and free will, as both work together. The memory reinforces determinism and the friction between them gives us the sensation of free thought process.

We can also have reasonable grounds to believe that imagination or creativity comes to us in an intuitive manner and it does not only provide new connections but also new cognitive material, adopting this theory can help us understand the development of language ( knowledge ) in it's infancy. The knowledge building process will involve placing a new foundation over the previous one or in some cases replacing it. The idea of intuitive mental processes is unknown to majority of the general public, including me but it can offer explanation into how the mind of creative thinker's works however, l do not see how it will link up free will and determinism, but nevertheless it aligns itself to a free thought process more. Religious language also largely features statements that trace their origin back to revelation but we can obviously disagree on that yet at the same time l cannot see how such statements would be justified, without resorting to intuition.

This post is quite a mess since both of these topics are quite vast and diverse and combining them will lead to some obscure material.