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

Although phonemic merger may be the most commonly observed
type of change, the literature is riddled with examples of changes that
leave contrast preserved. Numerous vowel chain-shifts have been described
and reconstruction of many language families suggests a great
many cases of retention of phonological contrast despite phonetic
changes. Rischel’s (1998) discussion of tone split in Thai provides a
clear example of this type of contrast preservation. Rischel (1998:1f)
remarks that “the tone splits which we can observe in the modern [Thai]
dialects, are individual and functionally optimal solutions to the preservation
of contrast between syllable types.”
The listener misperception scenario promoted by Ohala appears not
to predict the type of contrast preservation that one finds in the literature.
To be sure, the listener’s primary task in his framework is to preserve
pronunciation norms (through corrective processes) and not to change
them. However, the observation that a host of changes that appear to be
chain reactions take place in a language within a short period of time (as
we observe in the Nordic languages and Thai, for example) is not fully
compatible with the view that sound change is accidental. The adaptations
of Ohala’s model offered by Lindblom et al. may offer a better
way of dealing with the observed changes. However, they also entail
criticisms of teleology. Therefore, it can be claimed that we do not really
have a satisfactory account of diachronic phonetic change at present.
This dilemma is not new. Sapir (1921) discussed the problem of
sound change (or, in his terminology, phonetic drift) at length and concluded:
The easy explanations will not do. “Ease of articulation” may enter in
as a factor but it is a rather subjective concept at best. […] “Faulty
perception” does not explain that impressive drift in speech sounds
that I have insisted upon. It is much better to admit that we do not yet
understand the primary cause or causes of the slow drift in phonetics,
though we can frequently point to contributing factors.
(Sapir, 1921:183)
It is possible that the discussion of sound change has centred too
heavily on phonological contrast. Of course, contrast is a key element in
speech, but it is not necessarily the ultimate target of utterance plans, as
often seems to be implied in the literature. Conveying sociolinguistic
– 241 –