A cognitive approach to quantitative sociolinguistic variation 295and social stereotypes associated with particular modes of speaking and
types of speakers (see Kristiansen 2006 for more on social and linguistic
stereotypes). For instance, in the Scottish community investigated as part of
the present research, it is clear from the following extract that, contained
within this speaker’s knowledge system of variants of the phoneme /Ɵ/, is
some knowledge of the ‘types’ of speakers who use the labiodental variant
[f]. For the speakers in this extract, the realisation of /Ɵ/ as [f] (in the word
‘three’ at least) is associated with a social type, namely ‘mink’ or ‘tinky’,
terms used to describe undesirable and/or unintelligent people^2 :
(1a) Scots
LC: only ever three?
S: aye
LC: would ye ever say free?
S: noh cos then yer a mink
LC: really?
S: free, oh aye
E: oh aye, tinky
LC: ye hear folk saying it though eh?
S: free aye it just makes ye sound stupit
(1b) English translation
LC: only ever three?
S: yes
LC: would you ever say free?
S: no because then you are a mink
LC: really?
S: free, oh yes
E: oh yes, tinky
LC: you hear people saying it though, don’t you?
S: free yes it just makes you sound stupid
In the remainder of the chapter, we make use of three particular concepts
from Cognitive Grammar, namely ‘entrenchment’, ‘schematicity’ and ‘full
and partial sanction’. A brief definition of each of these is provided, in
order to clarify how we are using these terms. A phonological form is said
to be entrenched by frequency of successful use (on which see further Lan-
gacker 1987: 380); it is at this level at which exemplars are most clearly
operative, as phonetic phenomena. While it is clear that forms become
more entrenched as units through greater frequency, it is also clear that
there is no arbitrary cut off point where a form is or is not entrenched –