Preaspiration in the Nordic Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic ...

4.6 Summary and conclusions
The survey of the phonological distribution of preaspiration (Chapter 3)
and of their phonetic expressions in four sets of data (Chapter 4) provides
a basis for the discussion of how the fortis vs. lenis contrast was expressed
in earlier times, i.e., in Old Norse (ON). The main conclusions from
these two chapters can now be summarised:
1. The ON contrast between fortis vs. lenis stops is maintained in all the
dialects considered here. In fact, these contrasts are maintained in
virtually all mainland Scandinavian dialects.
2. The phonological distribution of preaspiration is highly dialectspecific.
No two dialects exhibit exactly the same pattern of
distribution, especially when one considers the development of
clusters. Still, in all dialects that have normative preaspiration, the
ON geminate fortis stops are reflected as postaspirated.
3. Phonetically, the stop contrasts are expressed in a variety of different
ways in the dialects considered, involving preaspirated, unaspirated,
postaspirated and voiced variants. There is no simple one-to-one relationship
between phonetic expression and the fortis ~ lenis categories.
The following discussion draws together and summarises the findings
from the surveys in Chapters 3 and 4. We shall first consider the fate of
the ON lenis stops and then turn our attention to the fortis stops. The
reader may find it helpful to consult the various tables presented in
Chapter 3, especially Table 3–13, which contain an overview of the reflexes
of ON stop contrasts in many of the dialects considered here. The
map in Figure 1–1 should also be useful.
It is assumed here that in its early period (700–900 AD) ON had a
fortis vs. lenis stop contrast in word-initial position. In word-medial
position, it is assumed that there was a phonological contrast in V()C
syllables and not in V()C syllables, i.e., for geminate stops and not for
singletons (cf., e.g., Haugen 1982 for an overview of the presumed phonological
organisation of ON). This phonological organisation is preserved
in Southern Icelandic and some Faroese dialects (specifically
Areas 1 & 2, cf. Ch. 3, sect. 3.3). 1 However, in mainland Scandinavian
1 Through the introduction of loan words, a fortis vs. lenis distinction can be made in
V:C syllables in both Northern Icelandic and Area 1 Faroese.
– 204 –