Mental models of linguistic varieties 267sial) “inherent value hypothesis” (Giles, Bourhis, and Davies 1975), i.e. the
claim that some language attitudes are due to inherent features of the sys-
tems and not only due to culturally or socially imposed norms, stereotypes
or socio-cultural connotations. It is important to note that this focus on
inherent and thus potentially universal features does not automatically en-
tail a universalist, non-relativist position (as the one that seems to be taken
by Lakoff 1987: 268; cf. the discussion in Kristiansen 2008: 410): Rather,
as other authors have emphasized before, the goal here is to strive for an
integration of embodiment, perception and cultural and social experience
within a holistic construal of linguistic competence and usage. In other
words, one of the goals of this chapter is to show how potentially universal
perceptual mappings of sounds and forms interact with cultural and other
mental models of social or ethnic groups, languages and varieties. The
seemingly opposite positions of inherent values vs. cultural stereotypes
regarding language attitudes in my view is a wrong opposition, since both
domains contribute their share to attitudes and mental models of language
in a conspirative manner, as will be argued below.^
1.2. Cognitive Models, Cultural Models, and other Theoretical
Assumptions
In his paper on cultural models of language standardization, Geeraerts
(2003) discusses two fundamentally different perspectives on language
standardization. The rational stance on language and language standardiza-
tion construes language primarily as a means of communication. The stan-
dard language is best suited for this function for several reasons: it is (sup-
posedly) geographically and socially neutral and sufficiently general, it can
be used for the verbalization of any topic, and it is connotationally neutral
and thus in sum the ideal means of social emancipation in the pre-modern
and modern societies. Variation and non-standardness, on the other hand, is
an impediment to emancipation. A prototypical instantiation of this model,
also discussed by Geeraerts, is the exclusive enforcement of Standard
French in revolutionary and post-revolutionary France. The Romantic
stance can be related not only to the romantic view of “indigenous” and
“authentic” local languages, but also to more modern sociological views
(e.g. Bourdieu 1982) on the varieties of dominant social strata. From this
perspective, the standard language is construed as a means of exclusion and