Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Cognitive Linguistic Research)

248 Gitte Kristiansen

What, then, do these data tell us about the explanatory dimension of lectal

acquisition? In order to try to throw light on the possible predictors of the

success rate for the results obtained for the three age groups in question, 5

measures of objective and subjective distances were identified:

1. Objective distance I: number of distinctive linguistic features with
   respect to a reference value (Standard Spanish)


2. Objective distance II: number of exclusive features (i.e. non–shared
   types)


3. Objective distance III: number of distinctive features (types) with a
   high token frequency


4. Subjective distance I: number of distinctive features the subjects
   were aware of


5. Subjective distance II: number of familiar speakers and socially
   stereotyped characters

Let us now address each of these measures in more detail and relate the
different dimensions to the data obtained. The results are currently being
subjected to a multivariate regression analysis, which means that in what
follows we will rely on rough counts only, but the findings are still telling.

4.1. Linguistic features as an objective distance

It has been argued from the perspective of cognitive phonology (e.g. Taylor
1990, 1995, 2002) that linguistic distance of phonetic features plays a role
in the construal of prototypically conceived phonemic categories. Centrali-
ty of phonemic categories is naturally ascribed to certain allophones be-
cause of structural properties inherent in the language:

[...] the putative central member of /t/ - say, the voiceless aspirated alveolar

plosive – enters into a number of highly salient perceptual and articulatory

contrasts with the putative central members of neighbouring categories,

such as the unaspirated alveolar plosive of /d/, the voiceless aspirated velar

plosive of /k/, and so on. (Taylor 1995: 228)

On the other hand it has been suggested (Kristiansen 2001, 2003, 2006,
2008) that intraphonemic and transphonemic distinctiveness is exploited by
language users in order to navigate in the social world: that unique clusters
of perceptually salient linguistic features are socially distinctive and operate
as cognitive reference points, or linguistic stereotypes, that effectively
evoke their social counterparts: social categorizations and social stereo-