Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 01.01.1992, Page 104

102
Höskuldur Þráinsson og Kristján Árnason
as already mentioned, and he found that their geographical distribu-
tion varied. The items listed in (4) above (which Guðfinnsson did not
investigate systematically) do, on the other hand, not seem to be ge-
ographically restricted to the same extent as the other variables under
discussion. (4a) and (4b) appear to be relatively recent innovations that
are spreading, as we will see, whereas (4c) is probably more closely
related to speaking style and tempo than the other phenomena (cf.
Ámason 1980b; Helgason 1991; Frímannsdóttir 1992). As we will see,
however, these reduction phenomena are somewhat more frequent in
the speech of the youngest generation than in that of the older ones
(see, for instance, Þráinsson & Ámason 1984:130). Hence they may
reveal a tendency in the modem language.
2.5 Which dialectfeatures are spreading?
2.5.1 The features and their comparison
First, it is useful to look again at the features listed in (5) as being
characteristic of the majority dialect and try to determine which ones
are innovations, which ones are preservations and which cases are
unclear. This is done in (6):
(6) Innovations:
a The “deaspiration” of /p,t,k/ (most likely).7
b The devoicing of sonorants.
c The [khv] pronunciation.
d The diphthongization before /gi/.
e The diphthongization before /ng,nk/.
f The insertion of [t] into /m,rl/ clusters.
7 There are some rather complex issues conceming the history of the system of
stop consonants that in our view need clarification, e.g. conceming the nature of the
opposition between the “hard” series /p,t,k/ and the “soft” series /b,d,g/ at various
stages of the history. But we do not have to concem ourselves with these here (see
e.g. Steblin-Kamenskij 1960, 1974). In any case, it is clear that in the forties the “soft
pronunciation” or deaspiration was gaining ground in areas which formerly had the
“hard pronunciation”.