266 Raphael Berthele
branch of sociolinguistics has more recently been focusing for a number of
years on a more fine-grained dynamics, such as the convergence and diver-
gence of language choices in social networks (Milroy 1992), as part of
processes that can be understood as “acts of identity” (cf. le Page and Ta-
bouret-Keller 1985). However, the attitudinal values attributed to languag-
es, varieties and styles remain very much related to the vertical dimension
as expressed in the Fergusonian (1959, 1991) distinction between High-
and Low-variety or the concept of prestige (Labov 1966, Trudgill 1972).
Despite the numerous investigations into sociolinguistic attitudes and eval-
uations of standard and non-standard speech, sociolinguists are surprisingly
uninventive in explaining the puzzling fact that speakers continue using
certain varieties despite their obvious and openly admitted lack of prestige
(cf. Niedzielski and Preston 1999: 101). On the whole, sociolinguistic theo-
rizing about the attitudinal component of the sociolinguistic dynamics has
been relatively poor. Labov’s (1966) notion of “covert prestige” is probably
the best known attempt to account for the attitudinal basis of the mainten-
ance of non-standard speech, and this concept will be further discussed in
section 2.2 below.
In this chapter, I argue that concepts from cognitive linguistics (CL) are
useful for a better understanding of folk models of linguistic variation,
standardization, and sociolinguistic values of varieties. This can be seen as
an attempt to reply to Preston’s point that we need a “folk theory of lan-
guage”:
[W]hat underlying beliefs, presuppositions, stereotypes, and the like lie be-
hind and support the existence of language attitudes? Ultimately, it seems to
me, this will require us to give something like an account of a folk theory of
language [...]. (Preston 2004: 41)Since one of CL’s most remarkable achievements is to offer theories of
(natural) categorization and cognitive models (ICMs, metaphors, and the
like) it seems sensible to use these theories also in the realm of folk models
of language. More specifically, in my view, CL should be particularly help-
ful for the study of the cognitive component of language attitudes (cf. La-
sagabaster 2005).
In this contribution, as a small step in this direction, a “cognitively in-
spired” way of eliciting gestalt-based mental models of languages/varieties
is demonstrated, and consistent patterns of attribution between visual traits
and phonological features are presented. Moreover, I suggest that some of
the evidence is consistent with what is generally called the (very controver-