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

parameter such as VOT or F0, may thus constitute a change in the
“shape” of the norm, i.e., in the scope of variation permitted in the expression
of a given piece of phonology.
Central to Ohala’s (e.g., 1981, 1993) scenario of change are listener
misperceptions. The failure of a listener to apply reconstructive rules
(hypo-correction), or the application of reconstructive rules when they
are not needed (hyper-correction), may result in a “mini sound change”
(Ohala 1993:243). Such a view of sound change has the advantage that
change is “accidental” and not goal-oriented. Changes that occur as a result
of listener misperception are, therefore, non-teleological. Lindblom
et al. (1995) argued that misperceptions were unlikely to be a significant
source of change, since having access to the lexical identity of a word,
“listeners-turned-speakers” must already have access to its correct pronunciation.
Adopting most aspects of Ohala’s scenario, but deemphasising
the importance of listener misperceptions, Lindblom et al.
(1995) suggested that sound change is an adaptive process, whereby the
speaker-listener evaluates speech output in terms of a range of evaluation
criteria, selecting forms that meet the criteria and rejecting those that do
not. Thus, speakers may adapt their communicative intent on the basis of
templates provided by other speakers. However, it might be argued that
this adaptation of Ohala’s scenario reopens the issue of teleology in
change.
In light of this debate, it is of interest to consider some aspects of the
development of stop systems in the Nordic languages which appear to
call for a mechanism that provides direction in sound change. For example,
preaspiration in Icelandic, Faroese and the Gräsö dialect seems to
have become normative only in contexts in which it is “needed”. Discussing
preaspiration in various Nordic dialects, including Icelandic, Faroese
and the Jæren dialect, Hansson (1999) comments:
Preaspiration has often come to support a phonological contrast, but
only as an indirect consequence of various independent sound changes
which would otherwise have resulted in merger were it not for the
presences of preaspiration. Such changes […] can thus be said to have
increased the ‘functional load’ of preaspiration, changing it from
redundant to contrastive.
(Hansson, 1999:163)
– 240 –