Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2000) - The University of ...

SALIENCE IN LANGUAGE CHANGE
the lexicon. This is an all-or-nothing matter, and the differences are
potentially the bearers of semantic information – though semantic differences
are by definition not allowable in the notion of the ‘linguistic variable’ itself
(Cheshire 1987). Because of the potential for semantic differentiation,
awareness of the contrast is likely to be high rather than low. Despite this, the
presence of a contrast is no guarantee of salience (see Auer, Barden &
Grosskopf 1998).
The fourth factor (phonetic distance) is relevant only for phonological
features. It has psychoacoustic explanations, though the parameters have not
been clearly established. However, for vowels a formula for the establishment
of ‘just noticeable differences’ has been proposed (Rosner & Pickering 1994),
and it has been applied in a study of phonetic changes in a speaker suffering
from Foreign Accent Syndrome (Dankovičová et al. 1999). Even though this
technique is likely to tell us what the absolute minimum phonetic difference
for salience might be, as we shall see from the example to be discussed later
in this article, it is unlikely to help us predict whether a particular vowel
difference will actually show salience (or, for that matter, extra-strong
salience).
The third predictor of salience (involvement in linguistic change) is
circular if salience is to be used as part of an explanation of language change
– which is surely Trudgill’s intention. The way in which this factor can be
maintained is if it is assumed that salience does not itself lead to change, and
that it is the change itself that causes speakers to notice the feature involved.
The first two criteria are essentially sociolinguistic in nature. They are
incontrovertibly signs of salience, but are not explanations. Stigma (factor 1)
and prestige (factor 2) are the result of a set of factors which lead to speakers
becoming aware of the particular features and attaching to them socially
negative and positive connotations, respectively. However, in setting out
these two criteria for salience, Trudgill can be accused of resorting to
circularity in his account: since we are attempting to explain both awareness
of features (salience) and their ‘polarity’ (i.e. whether negative or positive
associations are involved), it is not enough to say that speakers are aware of
the features because they have stigma or prestige (negative or positive
polarity). In fact, Trudgill breaks out of the circularity by discussing certain
features in terms of their wider social embedding – their geographical and
social distribution. Explanations for stigma and prestige should, then, be
sought in language-external sociolinguistic factors.
73