A cognitive approach to quantitative sociolinguistic variation 313the linguistic variants that they associate with a given type. For instance,
speakers in group D, F and H (see Tables 4 and 5 for details) may have, in
their mind, an association with the realization of (th): [f] and younger
speakers. Speakers in group F can therefore project their youthful image
by using a higher frequency of the labiodental variant while speakers in
group D and H can avoid using this variant for the same reasons i.e. to
project a more ‘grown-up’, responsible image.
In describing the cognitive processes involved in linguistic variation,
we have consistently emphasized the ‘choice’ that is available to the speak-
er. We acknowledge, however, that the individual is not without constraint
- language is not “an identity ‘free-for-all’, a dressing-up box from which
we can freely pick whatever suits us at that moment” (Britain and Matsu-
moto, 2005: 14). The internal structures of the language also impose consi-
derable constraints on the scope for marking social type allegiances, such
as those considered in the varbrul analysis above. Perhaps the truth of the
matter then lies somewhere between the two extremes - while speakers can
use linguistic variation to signal their identity, they may be “unconsciously
motivated to claim symbolic identity with a reference group” (Labov 2002:
9).
The assumption so far has been that linguistic choices index social cate-
gories directly and while this may be the case in the mind of the individual
speaker, it is important to note that the precise social meaning of TH-
Fronting in a community is not the same for every speaker. This point has
also been noticed recently by sociolinguists:
The bottom line is that more than one group of speakers can use the same
variable – but differences in the practices of these speakers will imbue that
same variable with different meanings. (Moore 2003: 11, original empha-
sis).Again, this sociolinguistic fact is entirely predictable within a usage-based
framework: the linguistic structure that is abstracted is largely determined
by a speaker’s previous experience (Langacker 1987: 380), and as no two
speakers will have had exactly the same linguistic experiences, each
speaker will abstract a (minimally) different linguistic structure. The pre-
cise social meaning of TH-Fronting for each speaker is therefore dependent
on a variety of factors including the type of speakers that each individual
has experienced using the variant and the context in which it was used.