The distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in
American English and Korean: an alignment
approach with typological implications*
STUART DAVIS AND MI-HUI CHO

Abstract
Languages that have both aspirated stops and the phoneme /h/ often manifest a close parallel in their distribution. Previous work in phonology either
has failed to recognize this close parallel or does not formally account forit. For example, American English witnesses a close parallel in the distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops that has largely gone unrecognized in thephonological literature. This paper oﬀers a detailed optimality-theoretic
analysis of the distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ for both American
English and Korean. For each of these languages we delineate their distribution and show how an optimality-theoretic analysis can account for it. We
develop an alignment analysis of their distribution that makes reference toconstraints that require positions of prominence (such as word-initial or
foot-initial position) to be aligned with the feature [spread glottis]. We
further demonstrate how the alignment analysis predicts a typology ofpatterning of aspirated stops and /h/. Crucially, the typology does notpredict that every language should have a close parallel in their distribution
like American English, but as we show, it predicts a range of patterns thatare instantiated.

Languages that have both aspirated stops and the phoneme /h/ frequently
manifest a close parallel in their distribution. This is not surprising giventhat such sounds are characterized by the feature [spread glottis] (henceforth, [s.g.]). Previous work in phonology either has failed to recognize theclose distributional parallel between aspirated stops and /h/ or does notformally account for it. For example, virtually none of the work on
American English phonology observes the similarity of distribution thatexists between them. In this paper we develop an alignment analysis of thefeature [s.g.] that accounts for the close parallel in the distribution of /h/and aspirated stops. In the first part of this paper we illustrate the close
Linguistics 41–4 (2003), 607–652

0024–3949/03/0041–0607© Walter de Gruyter

608 S. Davis and M.-H. Choparallelism in their distribution in American English and then oﬀer ananalysis of it within optimality theory. Crucial to our analysis of English isa constraint aligning the beginning of a foot with the feature [s.g.]. In thesecond part of the paper we consider the distribution of /h/ and aspirated
stops in Korean. We show that in Korean their distribution is only partiallyparallel in that aspirated stops can surface in more phonetic environments
than /h/. We account for the diﬀerence between English and Korean interms of diﬀerent constraint rankings in an optimality-theoretic grammar.
For the analysis of Korean we reference a constraint aligning the beginningof the word with the feature [s.g.]. Thus, given our analysis of English andKorean, we account for the patterning of the feature [s.g.] by reference toconstraints that require [s.g.] to surface in various positions of prominence.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 1 we present thedata that show the parallel distribution between /h/ and aspirated stops inAmerican English. In section 2 we develop an optimality-theoretic analysis
accounting for the distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American
English in a unified way. In section 3 we discuss two other possible
approaches in accounting for the distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops inAmerican English and note their shortcomings. In section 4 we present the
Korean data showing the distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops and insection 5 we oﬀer an optimality-theoretic analysis of it. In section 6 we
consider the typological implications of our analysis by examining the
distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in other languages. Section 7
concludes the paper.
1. The distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English
In considering aspirated stops and /h/ in American English, there arecertain positions in the word where these can occur and other positions
where they cannot. Their distribution is quite parallel. Both aspirated
stops and /h/ surface at the beginning of a syllable with primary stress
whether that syllable is word-initial or elsewhere in the word. This is seenby the data in (1) where the (a) column shows aspirated stops and the(b) column /h/.1(1) At the beginning of a syllable with primary stressa. póny[ph]b. hábit[h]térrible [th]
héro
[h]
cándy [kh]hı́story[h]atómic [th]prohı́bit [h]appéar [ph]Tahı́ti[h]matérial [th]mahógany [h]optı́cian [th]adhérence [h]Aspirated stops and /h/ 609
Aspiration and /h/ also surface at the beginning of a syllable with secondary stress as in (2).
(2) At the beginning of a syllable with secondary stressa. dávenpòrt [ph]b. álcohòl[h]Atàscadéro [th]Ahàsuérus [h]tı̀tánic[th]hỳpótenuse [h]cúcùmber [kh]Ójài[h]Chésapèake [ph]Ídahò[h]Another position where both aspiration and /h/ occur is at the beginningof the word before a stressless syllable. This is exemplified by the datain (3).
(3) At the beginning of a word-initial stressless syllable.2
a. Pacı́fic [ph]b. horı́zon [h]tomáto [th]Hawáii [h]connéct [kh]habı́tual [h]potáto [ph]hypócrisy [h]A further position where both aspirated stops and /h/ occur is in theonset of a word-internal stressless syllable when the preceding syllable isalso stressless. This is exemplified by the third syllable of the data itemsin (4). It should be mentioned that data like that in (4a) is often notdiscussed in the literature on English aspiration (e.g. Iverson and Salmons
1995; Selkirk 1982), though Jensen (2000) credits Withgott (1982) with
first observing aspiration in such an environment.3 Data like that in (4b)seem exceedingly rare, but nonetheless parallel the aspiration patternof (4a).
(4) At the beginning of a stressless syllable when immediately precededby a stressless syllable and followed by a stressed one
a. Mèditerránean [th]b. Tàrahumára [h]Nàvratilóva[th]lòlapalóoza[ph]Wı̀nepessáukee [ph]pèripatétic[ph]Nèbucadnézzar [kh]àbracadábra[kh]
On the other hand there are several environments where neither aspiration nor /h/ surfaces. The data in (5) show that neither surfaces in coda
position. The words in (5a) all have voiceless stops in coda position, butthey are not realized as aspirated. The words in (5b) are all borrowed

610 S. Davis and M.-H. Chowords containing a coda /h/ in the source language. The /h/ is not realized
in the American English pronunciation.
(5) In coda position (h– indicates a possible /h/ that does not surface)4
a. at.las[tX ]b. Teh
–.ran
ac.ne
[kX ]
brah
–.min
hyp.no.sis [pX ]
Yah
–.weh
–
lapse
[pX ]
Fah
–d
The data in (6) show that neither aspiration nor /h/ occurs intervocalicallyas the onset to a stressless syllable that follows a stressed one.
(6) At the beginning of a (noninitial ) stressless syllable following a
stressed onea. átom [&]b. vé.h–i.cleMı́ckey [k]prò.h–i.bı́.tionrápid [p]nı́.h–i.lismháppen [p]prè.h–I.stó.ric
Finally, the data in (7) show that neither can occur as part of the second
position of an onset even if in a stressed syllable.
(7) As a possible second member of an onset
a. skı́
[k]
b. Bh
–utan
exposı́tion [p]exh–ibı́tion
extı́nguish [t]exh–ı́bitWhile there has been little discussion on the parallel distribution of /h/and aspiration in the phonological literature,5 their parallel distribution
has been particularly emphasized in the phonetics literature by Goldstein(1992). In commenting on a paper by Pierrehumbert and Talkin (1992)
that examined the magnitude of the laryngeal gesture for /h/ in words
like those in the (b) column in (1)–(3) above, Goldstein (1992: 121–122)
noted the following: that there was very little diﬀerence in gestural
magnitude between word-initial and word-medial positions for /h/ at the
beginning of a stressed syllable; that the laryngeal gesture in word-initial
position is longer when that syllable is stressed (first three examples in[1b]) than when it is not stressed (as in [3b]); but that for unstressedsyllables there is a word-position eﬀect so that the laryngeal gesture islarger at the beginning of a word-initial stressless syllable (as in [3b]) as
opposed to a word-medial stressless syllable (as in [6b]). Goldstein compares Pierrehumbert and Talkin’s (1992) findings on the magnitude ofthe laryngeal gesture for /h/ with work by Cooper showing the magnitudeof the laryngeal gesture coordinated with an oral (voiceless) stop. In
comparing these studies, Goldstein noted that the eﬀects of the laryngeal

Aspirated stops and /h/ 611
gesture generalized over the presence or absence of coordinated oral
gestures. That is, similar prosodic positions of the /h/ and oral stops
were coordinated with similar laryngeal gestures. In the words ofGoldstein (1992: 122), ‘‘there is strong parallelism between prosodic
eﬀects on laryngeal gestures for /h/ and on those that are coordinatedwith oral stops. This similarity is particularly impressive in face of thevery diﬀerent acoustic consequences of laryngeal gestures in the twocases: generation of breathy voice (/h/) and generation of voicelessintervals.’’ The observations of Goldstein (1992) need to be emphasizedsince it seems to be the only phonetic discussion that explicitly compares
studies on the laryngeal gestures associated with oral stops and with /h/.
These observations support the claim of the close parallel in distribution
between aspiration and /h/ in American English as laid out in (1)–(7) inthis section.6

2. An optimality-theoretic analsis of English aspiration and /h/In this section we will develop an optimality-theoretic analysis of thedata in (1)–(7) that accounts for the parallelism of the distribution of
aspirated stops and /h/. Before beginning, however, we first make clear
our assumptions regarding the feature-geometric representation of /h/and aspirated stops in 2.1. We then discuss our assumptions about footstructure in American English in 2.2 since that will play a critical role in
our analysis. We present our detailed optimality-theoretic analysis in 2.3.
Section 3 will briefly discuss previous analyses of the distribution of
aspirated stops and /h/.

2.1. On the representation of /h/ and aspirated stops
In this subsection we make clear our assumptions regarding the featuralrepresentation of /h/ and aspirated stops. These segment types are similarin that they are both characterized by the feature [spread glottis] (cf.
Halle and Stevens 1971). We assume the feature-geometric representationof /h/ given in (8a) where /h/ is viewed as placeless having only thelaryngeal feature [spread glottis]. The phoneme /h/ is assumed to have aroot node and is not a floating segment. With respect to voiceless stops,
we follow Spencer (1996) and others in making the standard assumptionthat [spread glottis] is not underlyingly specified for voiceless stops
in English. This is because the occurrence of the feature on voicelessstops is noncontrastive and predictable. However, this is not a crucial

612 S. Davis and M.-H. Choassumption in our analysis. The optimality-theoretic analysis that weoﬀer would readily account for their distribution even if we assume that[spread glottis] is underlyingly present on voiceless consonants. This isbriefly discussed at the end of section 2.3. The underlying representationof a voiceless stop is shown in (8b). We assume that when [s.g.] is assigned
to a voiceless stop it surfaces with both the features [s.g.] and [−voice].
(8) Underlying representation of English /h/ and aspirated stops infeature geometry ([s.g.]=spread glottis)

2.2. On foot structure in American English
In order to understand the patterning of /h/ and aspirated stops (i.e. ofthe feature [s.g.]) in (1)–(7), it is necessary to discuss the nature ofAmerican English foot structure. This is because the basic generalizationaccounting for the distribution of [s.g] in (1)–(7) is that it surfaces infoot-initial position. This is not an obvious generalization especially inlight of the data in (3) and (4). With respect to English foot structure
we take the view of Pater (2000) that feet in English words are trochaic.
This is the standard view in the metrical literature on English, at least
going back to Hayes (1981). In (1) and (2), the stressed syllable constitutes the initial syllable of a trochaic foot; thus, the voiceless stop and/h/ that are in foot-initial position in those words are realized with [s.g].
An issue that arises regarding the nature of English foot structure
concerns the footing in words like that in (3) and (4). The words in (3)and (4) are similar to one another in that they all contain a stressless
syllable, not part of a preceding foot, which is immediately before thesyllable with main stress. The parsing of this syllable into a foot issomewhat unclear as shown by the examples in (9) where it is left
stranded or unparsed. (9a)–(9b) exemplify voiceless stops in this position
while (9c)–(9d) show /h/. (Parentheses delimit the trochaic foot. Forease of exposition we ignore final extrametricality and assume bisyllabic
feet as opposed to bimoraic foot.)Aspirated stops and /h/ 613
(9)

a.
c.

po(tato)[phe(thé&o)]ho(rizon)[he(ráy.zen)]b. (Navra)ti( lova)[(nàvre)the( lóve)]d. (Tàra)hu(mara)[(tæ̀re)he(máre)]This should be compared with the data in (10), which do not have thisstranded syllable.
(10)

a.

(happen)[(hǽpen)]b. (prohi)(bition)[(phròe)(bı́s̆en)]

The status of the stranded syllable in words like (9) is somewhat controversial. One could posit that these stranded syllables are just left unparsed
into foot structure as indicated in (9). However, this would fail to explain
the appearance of [spread glottis] in the onset of these stressless syllables,
especially given the fact that a stranded syllable at the end of the word
typically cannot begin with an aspirated stop. This is seen in (11).
(11)

a.

(cano)py[(kǽne)pi]b. (peli)can[(pÉle)ken]c. (chari)ty[(c̆ǽrI )&i

Another approach to the stranded syllables in (9) that has been suggested to us by Harry van der Hulst and one of the anonymous reviewers
is to view such syllables as constituting a degenerate foot, even though
they surface as stressless. While we could adopt this position given thefoot-based analysis we develop, we do not pursue it given our view thatmetrical feet constitute a stress domain. Instead, we follow Jensen (2000),
who proposes an analysis in which the stranded (monomoraic) syllable
constitutes the initial syllable of a superfoot. His proposed structureis shown hierarchically in (12) for the words potato and lolapalooza.
(F=foot, F =superfoot, s =stressless syllable, s =stress syllable)sws614 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
In (12a), we see that the word potato consists of a single superfoot.
The superfoot, in turn, consists of a stressless syllable followed by aregular trochaic foot. In (12b), the first two syllables are part of atrochaic foot while the last syllables constitute the superfoot. By
adopting Jensen’s (2000) proposal as illustrated in (12) we can accountfor the appearance of /h/ and aspirated stops in (1)–(7). Namely,
these sounds surface in foot-initial position. This is most clearly seenin (12a), where the word-initial stop of the word potato is aspirated
because it is at the beginning of the superfoot; the second stop is
aspirated because it is initial in the trochaic foot; but the third stop is
unaspirated (realized as a flap) because it is not foot-initial. Note alsothat given the structure in (12), English words will always begin witha syllable that is part of a foot, be it a superfoot as in (12a) or atrochaic foot with initial stress as in (12b).
There are several strong points to the foot structure for American
English as illustrated in (12). First, it makes for a simple statement for
where [s.g.] occurs, namely foot-initial position. Second, it is able todistinguish between the stranded syllables in (9) where [s.g.] is realized
from those stranded word-final syllables in (11) where [s.g.] is not realized.
The stranded syllables in (11), unlike those in (9), remain unparsed since
there are no other syllables that follow. Thus their initial stops surface
as unaspirated.7 And third, the foot structure in (12) is consistent with
McCarthy’s (1982) observation that words like those in (4) show variation with respect to expletive infixation. For example, lolapalooza canhave either the expletive form lola-fuckin-palooza or lolapa-fuckin-looza.
Given McCarthy’s general observation that expletive insertion occurs at
foot boundaries (i.e. immediately preceding a foot boundary), we seethat the location of the infixed expletive can be before either the superfootor the trochaic foot.8 In the remainder of the section on English we willassume the status of the superfoot. For space reasons we will not indicate
English footing hierarchically as in (12) but with bracketing as shown in(13), where parentheses indicate the binary trochaic foot and bracesdelimit the superfoot.
(13) a. {phe(thé&o)}b. ( lòle){phe( luze)}

2.3. A foot alignment analysis of [s.g]Given our discussion in the previous subsection regarding American
English foot structure, let us now consider the constraints necessary forthe optimality-theoretic analysis of the data in (1)–(7). Crucial for ourAspirated stops and /h/ 615
analysis is the alignment constraint (14) that aligns the feature [spreadglottis] to the beginning of the foot.
(14) AlignL(Ft,[sg]):
Align the left edge of the foot with the feature [spread glottis].9
The motivation for the alignment constraint can be found in discussion
by Iverson and Salmons (1995). For example, Iverson and Salmons argue
that the beginning of the foot is a prominent or privileged position in
the word. Accompanying this position with the feature [spread glottis]
makes for a more forceful sound given the greater translaryngeal air flowthat occurs with the articulation of a sound made with spread glottis.
Such an articulation would be perceptually more salient than one madewithout spread glottis and would be one of the expected ways of indicatinga prominent or privileged position. Iverson and Salmons (1995: 377)
state that for English (and most other Germanic languages), ‘‘[spreadglottis] is implemented with fully abducted vocal folds only in foot-initial
position.’’ Thus, the constraint in (14) is compatible with the view ofEnglish aspiration as domain-initial strengthening.
The other important constraints for the analysis are the markedness
constraints in (15)–(16) and the faithfulness constraints in (17)–(18)(cf. McCarthy and Prince 1995).
(15) *[s.g.,+voice]:
The feature [s.g.] cannot be realized on sounds that are [+voice].10(16) *[s.g.]
The feature [s.g.] is prohibited.
(17) MAXA phoneme in the input must have a correspondent in the output(i.e. avoid deletion).
(18) DEP
A phoneme in the output must have a correspondent in the input(i.e. avoid insertion).
Given these constraints, let us now consider their ranking in accounting
for the parallel distribution of aspiration and /h/ in the data in (1)–(7).
The first crucial ranking is given in (19), in which the markedness
constraint *[s.g.,+voice] in (15) must outrank the alignment constraintin (14).
(19) *[s.g.,+voice] & AlignL(Foot,[sg])This ranking is necessitated because voiced sounds are never realizedwith spread glottis in English, even when in foot-initial postion (e.g.
beans is not pronounced with an initial aspirated stop).

616 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
The second crucial ranking is given in (20), where the alignment
constraint outranks the markedness constraint *[+s.g.] in (16).
(20) AlignL(Ft,[sg]) & *[s.g.]
This ranking accounts for the fact that (unvoiced) sounds have the feature[s.g.] when at the beginning of the foot, as exemplified by words likecaterpillar [khǽ&ephÌler], Pacific, [phe.sÍ.fIk] and material [me.thÍ.ri.el ].
Another crucial ranking is that the constraint *[s.g.] outranks MAX,
as in (21).
(21) *[s.g.] & MAX
This ranking is needed in order to account for /h/ not being realized ina word like vehicle. Finally, the constraint DEP would outrank thealignment constraint, as shown in (22).
(22) DEP & AlignL (Ft,[sg])This ranking is necessary in order to prevent winning candidates with an
inserted [h] at the beginning of a vowel-initial foot such as in átom(*[hǽ&em]) or geometry ([ ji.á.me.tri], not *[ ji.há.me.tri]). However, whileboth DEP and *[s.g.,+voice] outrank the alignment constraint, theranking between these two constraints cannot be determined.
The ranking of the constraints in (19)–(22) is given in (23).
(23) Ranking of constraints*[s.g.,+voice], DEP & AlignL (Ft,[sg]) & *[s.g.] & MAX
This ranking is all that is needed for the analysis of the parallel
distribution of /h/ with aspirated stops in American English. To illustrate
this, we will go through sample tableaux for the data in (1)–(7). Consider,first, data as in (1), where both aspiration and /h/ occur at the beginningof the trochaic foot containing primary stress. The tableaux are given in(24) and (25).11

Aspirated stops and /h/ 617

In the tableau in (24), candidate (b) lacking aspiration on the initial stop
loses out to candidate (a) because of its violation of AlignL(Ft,[sg]).
Likewise, in the comparison between the two candidates in the tableauin (25), the second candidate lacking the initial [h] loses out because ofits violation of AlignL(Ft,[sg]). In the two tableaux, the (a) candidates
violate *[s.g.] but this violation cannot be fatal given that (a) is thewinning candidate. The parallel analysis of aspiration and /h/ is clear
from the distribution of constraint violations shown in the tableaux in(24) and (25).
Now let us consider the analysis of the data in (2), where both aspiration and [h] occur at the beginning of the foot containing secondary stress.

In the first two candidates in tableaux (26) and (27), a comparison ismade between the (a) candidates that have the feature [s.g.] at the beginning of a syllable with secondary stress and the corresponding (b) candidates that lack the [s.g.] feature. In both tableaux, the (b) candidate loses

618 S. Davis and M.-H. Choout because of the fatal violation of the constraint AlignL(Ft,[sg]). The
tableaux captures the symmetry in the distribution between /h/ and theaspirated stop. In (27c) we consider a candidate that is like the winningcandidate (27a), but with an aspirated /t/ that is foot-internal. (27c)does not violate higher-ranked constraints such as *[s.g.,+voice] nor
AlignL(Ft,[sg]). It nonetheless loses out because of the additional violation of *[s.g.] in comparison to the winning candidate.
Next consider data like that in (3), where both aspiration and /h/surface in the onset of a word-initial stressless syllable. Recall from our
discussion about (12) and (13) that such a syllable would be the firstsyllable of a superfoot. (The superfoot is indicated by braces.)

As shown, the candidates in tableaux (28) and (29) consist of a trochaic
foot that is embedded within a superfoot. The unstressed first syllable
corresponds to the left edge of the superfoot while the stressed secondsyllable corresponds to the left edge of the trochaic foot. The first syllable
in both (28) and (29) begins with an element that can have the feature[+s.g.] while the second syllable begins with a voiced (sonorant)
consonant and so could not surface with the feature [s.g.]. Candidates(c) in (28) and (29) are those that show an aspirated sonorant at the
beginning of the trochaic foot. This allows for perfect satisfaction of
AlignL(Ft,[sg]). However, as shown, the (c) candidates fatally violateAspirated stops and /h/ 619
the higher ranked *[s.g.,+voice] and so do not surface. On the other
hand, the (b) candidates minimize violations of *[s.g.], but they lose out
because of the failure of [s.g.] to surface on the initial syllable. Thus, the(a) candidates win out since they best satisfy the constraints.
Now let us consider the data in (4), which consist of an initial trochaic
foot followed by a superfoot. We will focus on the initial syllable of thesuperfoot, which is unstressed, but aspirated. The tableaux are given in(30) and (31).

In comparing the (a) candidates with the (b) candidates in (30) and (31)
we see that the (b) candidate loses because of a fatal violation of
AlignL(Ft,[sg]). Specifically, the fatal violation involves the lack of [s.g.]on the first syllable of the superfoot. The failed candidate in (31c) showsthat [s.g.] cannot be added to a voiced sound even if it helps to satisfy
the AlignL(Ft,[sg]) constraint since that would lead to a violation ofhigher-ranked *[s.g.,+voice]. Another point of note is that in Tarahumara
the [h] is underlyingly present. In words where a superfoot or foot begins
with a vowel, an [h] cannot be added even it helps to satisfy the
AlignL(Ft,[sg]) constraint since adding an [h] would violate higherranking DEP, which prohibits insertion. Consider the word in (32) with
the indicated foot structure.
(32) Indianapolis — (Ìn.di){e(nǽ.pe)}lIs
In this word, both the initial foot and the superfoot begin with vowels.
If an /h/ were to be added to either or both of these feet, the form would

620 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
incur a fatal violation of DEP. Thus, in comparing (32) with (31), the/h/ in Tarahumara is able to surface since it is underlyingly present. As(32) shows, an [h] cannot be added at random before vowel-initial feet.
Now let us examine the data in (5)–(7), where the feature [s.g.] does
not surface. First, consider the data in (5). Here, neither aspirated stops
nor [h] surfaces in coda position. As shown by the tableaux in (33) and(34) the analysis that we have developed is able to account for this. ( Wedo not consider candidates with voiced aspirated sounds since they would
violate undominated *[s.g.+voice].)

In the tableau in (33), the first candidate has a fatal violation of *[s.g.].
On this analysis, it is unnecessary to add aspiration into coda position
since it is not foot-initial. The example in (34) is quite similar. The word
brahmin is an example of a borrowed word where an [h] might surface
in coda position in the English pronunciation, given the presence of aphoneme that has the feature [spread glottis] in the source language.
However, if we compare candidate (34a), where [h] surfaces as a coda,with candidate (34b), where it is deleted, we note that (34a) violates*[s.g.] while (34b) violates MAX. It is the violation of higher-ranked*[s.g.] that eliminates candidate (34a) as the optimal candidate. Thus we
see that in both (33) and (34) the constraint *[s.g.] eliminates the candidate with [s.g.] since it is not in foot-initial position. It is worth mentioningthat the same reasoning that accounts for the lack of [s.g.] from a coda
position in (33) and (34) above would also account for the lack of [s.g.]
for data like that in (7) where the feature [s.g.] could potentially occur

Aspirated stops and /h/ 621
on the second member of an onset. Consider, for example, the tableaux
for ski and exhibition in (35) and (36), respectively.

Here the (a) candidates in (33) and (34) lose out because of the violationof *[s.g]. Thus, the analysis presents a single account for the absence of[spread glottis] in foot-internal position.
Finally, the analysis accounts for the data in (6) where there is no[s.g.] in the onset of the weak syllable of a foot. This is shown in (37)and (38) with the words atom and prohibition.

622 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
Again, the (a) candidates in (37) and (38) are eliminated due to the fatal
violation of *[s.g.]. These violations are fatal because of the occurrenceof a segment that is [+s.g.] in a position that is not foot-initial. Since
the underlying /t/ in atom does not surface in foot-initial position it does
not receive aspiration. Likewise, the underlying /h/ in prohibition deletes
since it would not be in foot-initial position. These should be comparedwith the related forms from (1), atomic and prohibit, where the relevant
segments do surface in foot-initial position with the feature [s.g.]. Our
analysis accounts for this, as shown in (39) and (40).

In summary, the optimality-theoretic analysis that we oﬀer here formally accounts for the close parallel in distribution between aspirated
stops and /h/ in American English as reflected by the data in (1)–(7).
We have presented the tableaux above in a way that highlights the parallel
distribution. This close parallel has either gone unnoticed in previous
work or has not been accounted for.12 If we consider all the cases where
neither /h/ nor aspiration surfaces, as in the tableaux in (33)–(38), in
every instance it is a violation of *[s.g.] that eliminates the (a) candidate.
The feature [spread glottis] only surfaces in foot-initial position, as shownby the tableaux in (24)–(31). Moreover, the analysis will readily work
even under the assumption that the feature [spread glottis] is part of the
input for voiceless stops, as is assumed by Iverson and Salmons (1995).
For example, if the [p] is underlyingly aspirated in (33), lapse, then the
ranking *[s.g.] & MAX-sg would account for the lack of aspiration in
the winning candidate.13 Thus, a single ranking of a few constraints
captures the parallel between the distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops

Aspirated stops and /h/ 623
in American English. In the next section we briefly consider two otherapproaches to the distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops in American
English.

3. Previous analyses of English aspiration and /h/In the previous section we have oﬀered a unified analysis within optimality
theory accounting for the distribution of /h/ and aspiration in American
English. As far as we are aware, there are no previous analyses (otherthan our own preliminary work) that attempt to oﬀer a unified accountof American English aspiration and /h/ distribution, although there aremany analyses of English aspiration and a few of /h/ distribution. Given
this, we do not have a specific source with whom we can directly compare
our analysis. Our intent in this section is not to take every analysis ofEnglish aspiration and see how it would apply to the distribution of /h/,or to take every analysis of /h/ distribution and see how it would apply
to aspiration. Instead, we will consider a syllable-based analysis of English
aspiration and a government-phonology analysis of English /h/ distribution and show the issues that arise when these analyses are extended toaccount for aspiration and /h/ distribution in a unified way.
Most contemporary studies on English aspiration adopt either a footbased approach or a syllable-based approach. As discussed in section 2.2,
our analysis opts for the foot-based approach. On this approach, voicelessstops are aspirated when foot-initial. Other researchers who have adopted
this approach include Nespor and Vogel (1986), Iverson and Salmons(1995), and Jensen (2000). We have incorporated the foot structure
proposed by Jensen (2000) in accounting for the appearance of aspirationon the voiceless stop in words like Mediterranean and lolapalooza. This
specific environment, at the beginning of a stressless syllable that is
sandwiched between a stressless syllable and a stressed one, has often
been neglected in studies on aspiration. As discussed in section 2.2, we
adopt the position of Jensen (2000), where this syllable is viewed as being
initial in a superfoot, illustrated in (12b). An alternative approach to theanalysis of the distribution of English aspirated stops is the syllablebased approach, which can be found in such works as Kahn (1976),
Selkirk (1982), and Giegerich (1992) in rule-based phonology. Under
this view, a rule aspirates voiceless stops when in syllable-initial position.
This is exemplified by the derivation in (41), following Selkirk.

624 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho(41)

Sample derivation for ‘‘appear’’ [e.phÍr]
Underlying representation ( UR): /epir/a. syllabification:e.pir
b. stress:e.pı́rc. aspiration rule:e.phı́r
Phonetic representation (PR):[e.phı́r]

One aspect of the syllable-based analysis is that it assumes a rule ofstress-based resyllabification. While diﬀerent researchers disagree as towhether the resyllabified segment is ambisyllabic or entirely in a coda,
we informally state the rule in (42), based on Selkirk (1982).
(42) Stress-based resyllabification (SBR):
Resyllabify an onset consonant of a stressless syllable into thecoda of a stressed syllable.
The rule of SBR is necessary in order to account for the lack of aspirationon the stops in words such as atom and happen, which would appear to
be at the beginning of the stressless syllable. SBR would apply before
the aspiration rule and bleed it. The derivation for the word happen is
given in (43).
(43)

UR:
a.
b.
c.
d.
PR:

syllabification:
stress:SBR:
aspiration rule:/hæpIn/hæ.pInhǽ.pInhǽp.In
does not apply[hǽp.In]

Selkirk (1982) does not apply her rule of SBR to the analysis of /h/
distribution; however, Borowsky (1984, 1986) does. Borowsky thenexplains the lack of /h/ in words like those in (5b) and (6b) by a rulethat deletes /h/ in coda position, given in (44), below.
(44) h-deletion: h  % / Coda|
This rule is crucially ordered after SBR. It neatly accounts for data likethat in the (b) columns in (1)–(3) and (5)–(6). Sample derivations are
given in (45).
(45) Derivation of horı́zon, véhicle, prohı́bit, pròhibı́tion (aspiration is
ignored)a. UR:/herayzIn/
1. syllabification: he.ray.zIn
2. stress:
he.ráy.zIn

Aspirated stops and /h/ 625
3.
4.
PR:
b. UR:
1.
2.
3.
4.
PR:
c. UR:
1.
2.
3.
4.
PR:
d. UR:
1.
2.
3.
4.
PR:

SBR:
h-deletion:

he.ráyz.In(does not apply)[he.ráyz.In]/vihIkel/syllabification: vi.hI.kel
stress:vı́.hI.kel
SBR:vı́.hI.kel
h-deletion:vı́.I.kel[vı́.I.kel ]/prohIbIt/
syllabification: pro.hI.bIt.
stress:pro.hÍ.b.It
SBR:
pro.hÍb.It
h-deletion:(does not apply)[pro.hIb.It]/prohIbIs̆In/syllabification: pro.hI.bI.s̆Instress:prò.hI.bÍ.s̆In
SBR:
pròh.I.bÍs̆.Inh-deletion:
prò.I.bÍs̆.In[prò.I.bÍs̆.In]

Taken together, Selkirk’s analysis of aspiration and Borwosky’s analysis
of /h/ distribution can be seen as a way of accounting for these phenomena by crucially referring to SBR. While we consider the Borowsky–
Selkirk analysis of English /h/ and aspiration interesting and insightful,it has at least two shortcomings. First, there is the technical problem thatthe analysis actually fails to account for the forms in (7b). Especiallyproblematic would be the word exhibı́t. Clearly, the /h/ in that word
would not be part of a coda, yet it does not surface. Second, the assumption of SBR is quite controversial and we do not assume it in our analysis.
From our perspective, though, the main shortcoming of the Borowsky–
Selkirk analysis is that it misses the fact that /h/ and aspirated stops
display parallel distribution. There would be the rule in (44) that states
where /h/ deletes (i.e. in coda position), but there would be a diﬀerent
rule that states where aspiration occurs (i.e. syllable-initially). The parallel
distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops goes unrecognized. We would
maintain that the preferred analysis should directly capture their parallel
distribution.
Within the framework of government phonology, Harris (1994, 1997)
implicitly recognizes the parallel distribution between English /h/ andaspirated stops. However, Harris’s specific analysis accounting for the626 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
distribution of /h/ is problematic when extended to cover aspiration.
Harris (1994: 210) considers the restricted set of h-data in (46).
(46)

a.
b.
c.

[h]it, [h]um, [h]ot
be[h]alf, be[h]ind, appre[h]end
ve[h]ı́cular vs. vé[h– ]icle, pro[h]ı́bit vs. pro[h– ]ibı́tion

To account for the lack of /h/ in veh–icle and proh–ibition in (46c),
Harris oﬀers the generalization in (47) couched in the terminology ofgovernment phonology.
(47) Harris (1994: 211):‘‘A licensed nucleus fails to bestow on a preceding onset thenecessary capacity to license a  h element’’ (emphasis added).
To understand what this means, we first note that a licensed nucleus is
one that is typically the stressless vowel of a bisyllabic foot. It is licensed
by the preceding stressed nucleus of the foot. Second, a segment consistingof a lone h element would be the phoneme /h/, given the featural-element
theory of government phonology adopted by Harris. In (48), we show
Harris’s (1994) specific representations of an /h/, a voiceless stop, and africative (h=noise, R=coronal, ?=stop, H=stiﬀ ).
(48)

a. /h/x|hb. /t/
x
|
R
|
h
|
?
|
H

c. /s/x|R|hHarris’s analysis in (47) then says that a licensed nucleus cannot be
immediately preceded by the segment [h]. In the word véh–icle, for example, the second vowel is licensed by the preceding stressed nucleus. It
thus cannot itself license the lone h element; consequently, the /h/ cannot
surface in the word veh–icle. It does surface in the word vehı́cular; since
the stressed nucleus in this word is not licensed, it can license a loneh element.
Harris’s analysis of English /h/ distribution is quite neat and readilyextends to other /h/ data in (1)–(7). For example, it extends to the datain (3b), where [h] surfaces before a stressless vowel in the initial syllable(as in the word horı́zon). Since the vowel in an initial syllable is notAspirated stops and /h/ 627
preceded by another vowel, that vowel, even if stressless, cannot belicensed; thus it is able to license a lone h element, correctly accounting
for the [h] in (3b).
While Harris’s analysis captures the distribution of /h/, it becomesproblematic when extended to aspiration. To see this, consider ourrewording of Harris’s generalization in (47), without the word lone, asin (49).
(49) A licensed nucleus fails to bestow on a preceding onset thenecessary capacity to license an h element.
Eliminating the word lone in (49) would seem to extend the generalization
to cover the distribution of aspiration, given that voiceless stops can havean h element as in (48b). However, Harris crucially represents fricatives
with an h element as well, as in (48c). (This representation is not trivial
since it would account for the debuccalization of fricatives to [h] inmany languages.) The broader generalization in (49) would wrongly
predict the lack of fricatives before (word-medial ) stressless vowels.
Consequently, Harris is careful in his wording of the generalization in(47) regarding the distribution of /h/. Thus, while Harris implicity recognizes the parallel distribution of /h/ and aspiration, his analysis of /h/can be considered problematic when extended to cover aspiration.
In summary, in this section, we have examined two additional analysesof the distribution of English /h/ and aspiration. One is the syllablebased analysis of Borowsky and Selkirk, and the other is Harris’s government-phonology analysis. Both the analyses are important and insightful.
As we see it, the main shortcoming of the Borowsky–Selkirk analysis isthat it misses the fact that /h/ and aspirated stops have a completely
parallel distribution. There would be the rule in (44) that states where/h/ deletes (i.e. in coda position), but there would be a diﬀerent rule thatstates where aspiration occurs (i.e. syllable-initially, after SBR). The
parallel distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops goes unrecognized. The
main shortcoming of Harris’s analysis of /h/ is that if it is extended tocover aspiration it wrongly predicts the lack of fricatives before stressless(word-medial ) vowels. While it may be possible to modify these analyses
in ways that more readily capture the close parallel in distribution between
aspiration and /h/, it is not our intent to do so. Rather, we have madeclear and treated more thoroughly than previous analyses the parallelism
between the distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ American English,
and we have also shown how it can be insightfully analyzed within
optimality theory. In the following two sections we will extend our
optimality-theoretic analysis so that it can account for the somewhat
diﬀerent distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops manifested in Korean.

628 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
4. The distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in Korean
While the distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English is
closely parallel, in standard Korean (Seoul dialect) their distribution issomewhat less parallel. The distribution in Korean is parallel in thatneither /h/ nor aspirated stops appear in coda position while both canappear in word-initial position. However, the parallelism breaks downwhen we consider the onsets of noninitial syllables. In this environment,
aspirated stops can occur but /h/ is normally deleted.14 (It should be
mentioned that Korean disallows complex onsets generally, so that /h/could never surface as a second member of an onset.) In order to accountfor the distribution of [s.g.] in Korean, we make reference to a constraint
requiring alignment between the beginning of the word and the feature[s.g.]. The distinction between word-initial position (which allows for thesurfacing of both /h/ and aspirated stops) and syllable-initial position
word-internally (which allows for aspirated stops but not /h/) is accounted
for by the interaction of this alignment constraint with other constraints.
Let us now consider the specific Korean data. First, the data in (50)
and (51) show that neither /h/ nor aspirated stops appear in syllable
coda position.15 (Sources for the Korean data include Kim-Renaud 1986
and S. Lee 1998, as well as the native judgments of the second author.)16
(50)

(51)

No [h] in coda positiona. /anh/[an]‘inside’b. /anh+pak/ [am.phak] ‘inside and outside’
c. /coh-ko/[co.kho]‘like (and)’d. /nah-ta/[na.tha]‘give birth (declarative)’e. /suh/[su]‘male’
f. /suh+pen/ [su.phem] ‘male tiger’
g. /suh+nom/ [sun.nom] ‘male creature’
No aspiration in coda position
a. /niph/[nip]‘swamp’b. /phath/[phat]‘red bean’c. /puekh-to/[puek.t"o] ‘kitchen (also)’17
d. /noph-ta/[nop.t"a]‘high (declarative)’

Second, the data in (52) and (53) illustrate that both /h/ and aspirated
stops can occur in word-initial position:(52)[h] at the beginning of the worda. hilk‘dirt’
b. ha-ta‘to do(declarative)’

Aspirated stops and /h/ 629
c. hyanki‘smell’d. halmeni‘grandmother’(53) Aspirated stops at the beginning of the word (the symbol ‘‘c’’represents a voiceless palato-alveolar aﬀricate)a. pha‘green onion’b. thal‘mask’
c. cho‘vinegar’d. khi‘height’
Third, the data in (54) and (55) show the absence of a parallel in the
distribution between [h] and aspirated stops in onset position beyond theinitial syllable. (54) exemplifies the lack of [h] in such positions, while(55) illustrates the presence of aspirated stops. (The forms in phonetictranscription in [54] show the pronunciation and syllabification when the/h/ deletes. [54d ] shows some allophonic changes that are not relevant
for our study.)(54) Lack of [h] in onset position beyond the initial syllable (the line
through the /h/ indicates that it is not pronounced)
a. co.h–a[co.a]‘like (stative)’b. man.h–a[ma.na]‘much (stative)’c. no.h–i.ni[no.i.ni]‘put (associative)’d. sil.h–e[s̆i.re]‘dislike (stative)’(55) Aspirated stops in onset position beyond the initial syllable
a. ki.pho‘air bubble’
b. hwan.tho‘mud’
c. ki.cha‘train’d. khul.khul‘(snoring sound)’In comparing Korean with English, the Korean data are similar to theEnglish data in that aspirated stops and /h/ both surface at the beginningof the word while failing to surface in coda position. However, thesimilarity with English as well as the parallel distribution of /h/ andaspirated stops fails to be reflected in (54) and (55). Here we see a
diﬀerence between the patterning of /h/ and aspirated stops. While /h/does not usually surface in the onset of a noninitial syllable, (54), aspirated stops do, (55). Also, it needs to be pointed out that the aspirated
stops in (55) do not necessarily correlate with the beginning of a foot.
Recall that, in English, aspirated stops occur at the beginning of a foot,but not foot-internally, as seen by words like atom and rapid in (6). Foot
structure and stress in Korean are subject to much controversy anddisagreement among linguists working on standard Korean. There are at

630 S. Davis and M.-H. Choleast four diﬀerent views. One view is that there is a trochaic ( left-headed)foot over the first two syllables so that stress always goes on the initialsyllable (e.g. Lee 1992; Davis and Lee 1996). A second view is that there
is an initial iambic foot such that stress goes on the first syllable if it isheavy, otherwise on the second syllable (e.g. Kim 1998). A third view isthat Korean has an unbounded right-headed foot so that stress goes on
the leftmost heavy syllable, otherwise on the final syllable (e.g. Jun 1994).
The fourth view is that standard Korean does not have word stress atall (e.g. Lim 1999). This disagreement reflects not only a disagreementon the analysis but a fundamental disagreement among linguists working
on Korean as to where stress occurs in the word. Nonetheless, what isclear is that aspirated stops can occur in the onset of any syllable of theword. While the data in (55) only illustrate examples with the first two
syllables, a Korean word like [k"æk"ithata] ‘is clean’ shows that aspirated
stops can occur after the first two syllables. Consequently, we see fromthe data in (50)–(55) that while aspirated stops can occur generally insyllable-initial position, /h/ only occurs word-initially. An optimalitytheoretic analysis of Korean would need to account for this diﬀerence inthe distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops.
One other point of diﬀerence between Korean and English concerns
words where an underlying /h/ is deleted. In Korean, a remnant of thedeleted /h/ triggers aspiration if it is next to a stop consonant. This has
been termed ‘aspiration merger’’ (e.g. Kim-Renaud 1986). The datain (50b)–(50d), repeated in (56a)–(56c), are examples of progressive
aspiration merger, while the examples in (56d)–(56f ) show regressive
aspiration merger.
(56) Korean aspiration merger (i.e. aspiration triggered by the deletionof /h/)
a. /anh+pak/ [am.phak] ‘inside and outside’
b. /coh-ko/[co.kho]‘like (and)’c. /nah-ta/[na.tha]‘give birth’d. /sok+hi/[sokhi]‘fast (adverbial )’e. /ip+hak/[iphak]‘admission’f. /kut-hi-ta/ [kuchita] ‘hardens’18
English does not have clear examples of data like that in (56), where thedeleted /h/ triggers aspiration in a neighboring stop. This is because
English does not have suﬃxes beginning with an initial /h/. Possible
compound data such as uphill and backhand tend to retain a secondarystress on the second syllable so that the /h/ in these words would be
pronounced.19 The aspiration merger shown in (56) only occurs if theAspirated stops and /h/ 631
consonant adjacent to the deleted /h/ can be aspirated.20 If the neighboring consonant cannot be aspirated, then the /h/ deletes without triggering
aspiration. This is seen in (57).
(57)

Korean /h/ deletion without aspiration merger
a. /norah-myen/ [noramyen] ‘if it is yellow’
b. /anh+saram/ [ans"aram] ‘wife’
c. /coh-a/[coa]‘like (stative)’

Consequently, an analysis would need to account for the eﬀect of thedeleted /h/ in triggering aspiration. In the next section we turn to an
optimality-theoretic account of the patterning of /h/ and aspirated stops
in Korean.

5. An optimality-theoretic analysis of Korean /h/ and aspirated stops
In comparing the patterning of /h/ and aspirated stops in Korean withthat in English, there are a number of diﬀerences in Korean that havean eﬀect on the active constraints that will be employed for the optimalitytheoretic analysis. One major diﬀerence between the two languages isthat aspirated stops are phonemic in Korean; thus the feature [spreadglottis] must be part of the underlying representation of aspirated stops.
In English, where aspiration is not phonemic, we did not need to assume
an underlying [spread glottis] feature for the analysis that was presented
and discussed in section 2.
A second diﬀerence between Korean and English is, as mentioned, theasymmetry between /h/ and aspirated stops in Korean, where /h/ surfaces
only at the beginning of a word-initial syllable while aspirated stops cansurface at the beginning of any syllable. To account for this diﬀerence
we make reference to the alignment constraint in (58) and the constraint
militating against the phoneme /h/ in (59).21(58) AlignL ( Word,[sg]):
Align the left edge of the word with the feature [s.g.].
(59) *h:[h] is not allowed.
The ranking of the alignment constraint in (58) over the constraint in(59) will ensure the appearance of /h/ in word-initial position, as exemplified by the data in (52). Nonetheless, the relative ranking of *h over thefamiliar MAX constraint given in (17) will ensure the deletion of /h/ innoninitial position, as seen in data like (50) and (54). Moreover, it should
be noted that neither [h] nor the feature [s.g.] can be inserted at the632 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
beginning of a word to satisfy the alignment constraint in (58). The
feature [s.g.] only surfaces when it is underlyingly present. The undominated constraint militating against the insertion of [s.g.] is given in (60).
(60) Dep-sg:
The feature [spread glottis] in the output must correspond to a
[spread glottis] feature in the input.22
A third diﬀerence between Korean and English has to do with theanalysis of the failure of the feature [s.g.] to be realized in the coda. In
the analysis of English, the lack of [s.g.] in coda position resulted froma fatal violation of the constraint *[s.g.]. However, in Korean, both thelack of /h/ and aspirated stops in coda position can be understood moregenerally as a reflection of the fact that all coda consonants in Korean
are unreleased (cf. Steriade 1993; Iverson and Sohn 1994; Tak 1997).
Thus, the only allowable coda in Korean is an unreleased [−continuant]sound. (This includes unreleased oral stops, unreleased nasal stops, andthe unreleased lateral.) Segments with the marked laryngeal features(tense or aspiration) as well as [+continuant] (fricative) segments do notsurface with such features in coda position, but as unreleased stops.
Consequently, Korean has the high-ranking (inviolable) coda condition
constraint in (61):(61) Coda condition (CodaCon):
Only unreleased segments are allowed in the coda.
This constraint often results in the deletion of the feature [s.g.], as in(51), where the underlying aspirated stops do not surface as such. Thus,(61) interacts with the constraint in (62) that militates against the deletionof [s.g.].
(62) Max-sg:
The feature [s.g.] in the input must have a corresponding feature[s.g.] in the output.
Given these constraints, we now present our analysis of the distributionof /h/ and aspirated stops in Korean. We will further discuss the rankingsof these constraints as we present the tableaux for the Korean data in(50)–(57).
In order to see how the various constraints are ranked for the Korean
analysis let us first consider the data in (52) and (53), repeated in (63),which illustrate the presence of /h/ and aspirated stops at the beginningof the word. The tableau for the word in (63b) is shown in (64) where
the two undominated (inviolable) constraints discussed above in (60)and (61) appear as the first two contraints in the tableau.

Aspirated stops and /h/ 633(63) [h] and aspirated stops at the beginning of the worda. hilk‘dirt’
b. ha-ta‘to do (declarative)’c. hyanki ‘smell’d. halmeni ‘grandmother’e. pha‘green onion’f. thal‘mask’
g. cho‘vinegar’h. khi‘height’Here we see that candidate (64a), which preserves the initial /h/, is thewinning candidate despite its violation of *h. The tableau shows that
AlignL( Word,[sg]) must be higher-ranked than *h or else (64b) would
wrongly be the winner. The ranking established by tableau (64) is shownin (65).
(65) AlignL( Word,[sg]) & *hSimilarly, the tableau in (66) shows an example of an underlying initialaspirated stop being realized as aspirated on the surface. Here, thewinning candidate does not violate any relevant constraint.

Tableaux (66) and (64) show that the distribution of aspirated stops
and /h/ are parallel in word-initial position. Now consider the asymmetryreflected by the data in (54) and (55), where /h/ fails to surface at the
beginning of noninitial syllables while aspirated stops do appear. First,
the tableau in (67) shows the case where the phoneme /h/ fails to surface
at the beginning of a noninitial syllable.

634 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho

In the tableau above, candidate (67a) is eliminated because of its violationof undominated Dep-sg, despite the fact that it satisfies the alignment
constraint. This provides an argument for the ranking in (68) of Dep-sg
over AlignL( Word,[sg]).
(68) Dep-sg & AlignL( Word,[sg])The interesting comparison in the tableau in (67) is between candidates(67b) and (67c). (67b) is the faithful candidate and has fewer constraint
violations than (67c), but it is nonetheless a losing candidate. The key
constraint that (67b) violates is *h. This constraint is respected by thewinning candidate (67c). On the other hand (67c) violates Max-sg andMAX. For (67c) to be the winner *h must be higher-ranked than bothMax-sg and MAX.
To be clear, (67c) violates Max-sg since the [s.g.] feature from the /h/does not surface, and it violates MAX because the phoneme slot (or rootnode) of the /h/ is deleted. The ranking that emerges from the comparisonof (67b) with (67c) is shown in (69).
(69) *h & Max-sg, MAX23
This ranking can be combined with (65) to yield the fuller ranking in (70).
(70) AlignL( Word,[sg]) & *h & Max-sg, MAX
The ranking of *h over Max-sg and MAX militates against the appearance of /h/, but the ranking of AlignL( Word,[sg]) over *h requires thesurfacing of an input word-initial /h/. Thus /h/ only surfaces wordinitially. Because the relevant constraint is one militating against thesurfacing of /h/ (*h), and not against the feature [spread glottis] generally,
underlying aspirated stops are unaﬀected by *h and so can appear at the
beginning of noninitial syllables (as well as at the beginning of a word).
This is shown by the tableau in (71) for the word in (55a).

Aspirated stops and /h/ 635

In tableau (71), the faithful candidate (b) is the winning candidate despite
its violation of AlignL( Word,[sg]). Candidate (71a), on the other hand,satisfies the alignment constraint by adding the aspiration to the initialconsonant. However, since the initial consonant is not underlyingly aspirated it incurs a fatal violation of higher-ranked Dep-sg. The candidatein (71c) loses out because of its violation of Max-sg in comparison withthe winning candidate (71b). There is no reason for the deaspiration of
the stop to occur in (71c) and so it is eliminated. Thus, our analysis
with the critical ranking in (70) is able to account for both the appearanceof word-internal aspirated stops at the beginning of syllables and thelack of realization of /h/ word-internally.
Let us now consider both the lack of aspiration and lack of [h] insyllable coda position. As discussed, Korean has an undominated coda
condition constraint, given in (61), which requires coda consonants tobe unreleased. This prevents a consonant with the feature [s.g.] fromsurfacing in a coda. Consider the tableau in (72), which reflects the datain (51) where an underlying aspirated stop surfaces without aspirationin coda position.

Here we see that because the constraint CodaCon is undominated, (72b)is the winning candidate. The faithful candidate in (72a) violates
CodaCon. The winning candidate in (72b) respects CodaCon; by respecting CodaCon it induces a violation of Max-sg. Thus the tableau in (72)constitutes an argument for the ranking in (73) since the reverse ranking
would result in (72a) wrongly being the winner.

636 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho(73) CodaCon & Max-sg
If we turn our attention to the data in (50) showing the lack of asurface [h] in coda position, an interesting complication occurs. While/h/ does delete in coda position, as would be predicted given the ranking
reflected in the tableau in (72), the [spread glottis] feature of the underlying /h/ is still realized, as aspiration on a neighboring onset stop. Thisis referred to by Kim-Renaud (1986) as aspiration merger. Additional
examples of this were provided in (56). Consider the tableau in (74) for
the word /nah-ta/, originally given in (50d) and repeated in (56c). In
accounting for this form we make use of a constraint that militatesagainst coalescence. McCarthy and Prince (1995) term the constraint
uniformity, while, Lamontagne and Rice (1995) refer to it as *MC
militating against multiple correspondence. We give the wording of theconstraint in (75) following Lamontagne and Rice (1995: 218).

(75) *MC:
Elements in the input and the output must stand in a one-to-one
correspondence relationship with each other.
In (74), the faithful candidate (74a) has [h] in coda position. This
constitutes a critical violation of undominated CodaCon and thus (74a)is eliminated. Candidate (74c) completely deletes the oﬀending [h], while
candidate (74b) preserves the [spread glottis] feature of the /h/ on theneighboring voiceless stop /t/. This means that candidate (74b) better
satisfies the constraint Max-sg. (74b), however, incurs a violation of*MC since the features of the [th] in (74b) come from two diﬀerent input
phonemes. Specifically, while most of the features of [th] in (74b) comefrom the input /t/, its [s.g.] feature comes from the input /h/. This
constitutes a violation of *MC. Nonetheless, (74b) is the winning candidate. Consequently, *MC must be ranked lower than Max-sg or else
(74c) would be the winning candidate. Thus, the ranking in (76) accounts
for the aspiration merger involving /h/.
(76) Max-sg & *MCAspirated stops and /h/ 637
It should be noted that aspiration merger does not always occur. Thisis seen in comparing the data in (56), where a deleted /h/ leads toaspiration merger, with that in (57), where the [s.g.] feature of the deleted/h/ is completely unrealized. The data are repeated below for convenience.
(56) Korean aspiration merger (i.e. aspiration triggered by the deletionof /h/)
a. /anh+pak/ [am.phak] ‘inside and outside’
b. /coh-ko/[co.kho]‘like (and)’c. /nah-ta/[na.tha]‘give birth’d. /sok+hi/[sokhi]‘fast (adverbial )’e. /ip+hak/[iphak]‘admission’f. /kut-hi-ta/ [kuchita] ‘hardens’(57) Korean /h/ deletion without aspiration merger
a. /norah-myen/ [noramyen] ‘if it is yellow’
b. /anh+saram/ [ansaram]‘wife’
c. /coh-a/[coa]‘like (stative)’
In comparing the two sets of data it should be clear why aspiration
merger fails to occur in (57). The sounds adjacent to /h/ in (57) are notsounds that can be aspirated in Korean. That is, they are not voicelessstops. This suggests that, in Korean, feature-cooccurrence constraints
such as *[s.g.,+voiced ] (given in 15) and perhaps *[s.g.,+continuant]are undominated, thus preventing aspiration merger in (57).24
The situation of aspiration merger always involves /h/ in the input.
There are data, however, involving an aspirated stop, such as that in(77) (repeated from [51c] and [51d ]) where an aspirated stop is followed
by a plain voiceless stop in the input. In such situations the [s.g.] feature
is not realized.
(77)

a. /puekh-to/b. /noph-ta/[puek.t"o] ‘kitchen (also)’[nop.t"a]‘high (declarative)’

The data in (77) reflect a general tensification or fortition process in
Korean (cf. Kim-Renaud 1986), which requires the second of two adjacent obstruents to be tense. In an optimality-theoretic approach thiswould be expressed by a tensification constraint, along the lines of (78).
(78) Tensification (TENSE):
In a sequence of two obstruents, the second one is tense.25
For the Korean analysis, this constraint would need to be higher-ranked
than the Max-sg constraint. A tableau for (77b) is provided in (79).

638 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho

The faithful candidate, (79a), is eliminated because of the violation of
undominated CodaCon. The candidate with aspiration merger, (79b),
fails due to its violation of TENSE. (Candidate [79b], does not violate
Dep-sg since the aspiration on the [th] corresponds to the aspiration on
the input /ph/.) The winning candidate in (79c) respects CodaCon, though
it fares worse on Max-sg, thus motivating the ranking in (80).
(80) TENSE & Max-sg26
It should be noted that the tableau in (79) accounting for tensification
does not have an eﬀect on the data with /h/ showing aspiration merger
as in (56a)–(56c). To see this, consider the form in (56c), which wasshown in tableau (74). In (81) we show the tableau for the same form,
but with the tensification constraint along with additional relevant
candidates. The candidate with aspiration merger is still the winner.

Notice that the winning candidate, (81b), does not incur a violation of
TENSE. This is because the constraint refers to an output with two
adjacent obstruents. Since (81b) does not have two adjacent obstruents,
it vacuously satisfies the constraint. The closest competing candidates,(81c) and (81e), are eliminated because they each fare worse on theconstraint Max-sg. The tableau confirms the ranking shown in (76),where Max-sg outranks *MC. Thus the rankings in (76) along with thoseAspirated stops and /h/ 639
in (73) and (80) account for both Korean aspiration merger, whichaﬀects an input /h/, and tensification, which can aﬀect an aspirated stop.
In summary, we have provided a detailed analysis of the distributionof aspirated stops and /h/ in Korean. Their distribution in Korean isparallel to an extent in that neither /h/ nor aspirated stops appear incoda position while both can appear in word-initial position. However,the parallelism breaks down when we consider the onsets of noninitialsyllables. In this environment, aspirated stops can occur but /h/ is normally deleted. To account for this diﬀerence, we showed that Korean has
the constraint ranking reflected in (70), where the *h constraint outranks
the Max-sg and MAX constraints, but where *h itself is outranked by
AlignL( Word,[sg]). Since *h has no eﬀect on underlying aspirated stops,
it does not prevent such stops from surfacing in the onsets of noninitialsyllables. In (82) we give the crucial constraint rankings for the Korean
analysis with reference to the critical tableaux showing the rankings inparentheses.
(82)

Coda-Con & Max-sg (72)Dep-sg& AlignL( Word,[sg]) (67)
AlignL( Word,[sg]) & *h (64)*h & MAX,Max-sg (67)TENSE & Max-sg (79)Max-sg & *MC (74)

6. Typological implications
In the first part of this paper we illustrated how the distribution of
aspirated stops and the phoneme /h/ are closely parallel in American
English. Previous analyses of this have either failed to recognize this close
parallel or do not formally account for it. We showed how an optimalitytheoretic approach can account for the distribution of aspirated stops
and /h/ in a unified way. Crucial to our analysis was the constraint
AlignL(Foot,[sg]), which aligns the beginning of the foot with the feature[s.g.]. In the second part of the paper we considered the distribution ofthese sounds in standard Korean. Here, the parallel distribution broke
down when we considered the onsets of noninitial syllables: aspirated
stops occur in such positions but not [h]. Crucial to our analysis was the
ranking in (70) where AlignL( Word,[sg]) played a key role. With theranking in (70) we were able to account for the appearance of aspirated
stops at the beginning of any syllable as well as the restriction of [h] toword-initial position. In the remainder of this section, we want to briefly

640 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
explore some of the typological implications of our analysis. First, weconsider the role of our alignment constraints for the analysis of aspiration and /h/ in other languages. Then we consider the parallel distributionof /h/ and aspirated stops more generally, where we emphasize that thediﬀerent rankings of constraints predict a typology of distribution patterns with respect to /h/ and aspirated stops; the patterns that are predicted do not always entail a parallel distribution or even a close parallelin distribution between /h/ and aspirated stops.
Our analysis of aspirated stops and /h/ in English and Korean can betermed an alignment analysis of [s.g.], since the analysis makes crucial
reference to the alignment constraints that we repeat in (83). Notice thatthe constraints refer to the prominent positions in a word such as wordinitial and foot-initial positions. From the phonetic perspective, one canview the alignment phenomena in English and Korean as examples ofdomain-initial strengthening, in which the beginning of a prosodic domain
is enhanced by a perceptually salient feature. From the phonologicalperspective, the alignment phenomena reflect the role of positional prominence as developed from an optimality-theoretic perspective in works
like that of Beckman (1997) and Zoll (1997).27(83)

The alignment constraints
a. AlignL(Foot,[sg])b. AlignL( Word,[sg])An alignment analysis with a constraint like (83a) was briefly considered
and then rejected by Jensen (2000: 215) for English because nonaspirated
sounds can occur in foot-initial position.28 But as we showed in our
analysis of English in section 2.3, (83a) is dominated by feature-cooccurrence constraints so that nonaspirated voiced sounds, for example, cansurface in foot-initial position. The question arises as to whether theconstraints in (83) play a role in languages other than English andKorean. With respect to (83a), Iverson and Salmons (1995) suggest that
the English pattern of aspiration applies in some of the other Germanic
languages as well. Along these lines, Hall (1992) oﬀers an analysis of
German syllabification where aspiration occurs at the beginning of thefoot.
An interesting case where the constraint in (83b), AlignL( Word,[sg]),
plays a role is in the Arawakan langauge Bare. Consider the data in (84)and compare it with that in (85) (these data are discussed by Aikhenvald
1995; Haspelmath 1997; Oliveira 1998).
(84)

a. haba‘fingernail
b. hnu-aba ‘my fingernail’c. phi-aba ‘your fingernail’Aspirated stops and /h/ 641(85)

a. neneb. nu-nenec. bi-nene‘tongue’‘my tongue’‘your tongue’

The data in (84) can be understood if the morpheme meaning ‘fingernail’
is underlyingly /aba/, but having a floating [s.g.] feature. This is shownin (86), where ‘‘s.g.’’ indicates a floating [spread glottis] feature.
(86)

s.g.
a. /aba/s.g.
b. /nu-aba/s.g.
c. /bi-aba/

The constraint in (83c), AlignL( Word,sg]), would be high-ranking, forcing the floating feature [s.g.] to surface word-initially. The floating feature[s.g.] is realized as an [h] if the first sound of the lexical word is a sonorant
as in (84a) and (84b), and it is realized as part of an aspirated stop if
the first sound of the lexical word is an oral stop, as in (84c). The wordin (85a), [nene] ‘tongue’, would be an example of a lexical item that does
not have a floating [s.g.] feature. Thus, we see evidence for the relevanceof the alignment constraints in (83) from languages other than English
and Korean.
One could ask a further question with respect to the role of a possible
constraint aligning the beginning of the syllable with the feature [s.g.],namely AlignL(syllable,[sg]). Consider, for example, standard Bangla(Bengali) mentioned by Vijayakrishnan (1999), where underlying aspirated consonants deaspirate in coda position, so that aspirated consonants only surface syllable-initially. Here, such a pattern can be accounted
for by the interaction of coda condition constraints with faithfulness
constraints without any need to refer specifically to a constraint like
AlignL(syllable,[sg]). Consequently, if one views the alignment constraints in (83) as manifestations of domain-initial strengthening, thenperhaps the relevant domains are the larger domains such as the foot orthe (prosodic) word, but not the syllable. There may be functional reasonsfor this that we will not speculate about.
In our discussion of English we show that the distribution of aspirated
stops and /h/ are closely parallel; in Korean it is somewhat less so. We
oﬀered a detailed optimality-theoretic analysis for each of these languages
that accounts for the close parallel in distribution of aspirated stops and/h/. However, we want to make clear that our analysis does not predictthat their distribution is necessarily parallel (or closely parallel ) in all
languages. In fact, diﬀerent constraint rankings would predict a typology
of distribution patterns with respect to /h/ and aspirated stops. For
example, one might expect to find languages that have aspirated stops
but no [h]. Here, the constraint *h would be undominated. An example

642 S. Davis and M.-H. Chomight include certain dialects of British English that seem to be completely lacking [h] but have aspirated stops (John Harris, personal communication). Moreover, we would also expect to find languages such as
modern standard French, where a constraint like *[s.g.] in (16) is undominated, so that neither [h] nor aspirated stops surface ( leaving aside thepossible issue of the feature [s.g.] being realized on fricatives). We would
further expect to find a language where /h/ and aspirated stops canappear anywhere in a word. Arabic is such a language. Here the constraints on feature faithfulness would outrank any of the other relevant
constraints. Finally, we would expect to find languages that have [h] butlack aspirated stops. Such languages may be analyzed with a high-ranking*[s.g.] constraint along with a higher-ranking MAX constraint that would
have the eﬀect of preserving an input /h/. Examples might include
Japanese as well as nonstandard French dialects that preserve the pronunciation of (historic) /h/ but lack aspirated stops (Julie Auger, personalcommunication).
As a final question, we can ask if there are attested distributions of /h/and aspirated stops that we do not predict. One potentially problematic
example is Javanese, where [h] normally only occurs in coda positionand voiceless stops are unaspirated (see, for example the discussion on
Javanese pronunciation in Horne 1961). This distribution is not predictedby the analysis that we oﬀer here since the coda is not a position ofsalience. We think that the key to understanding the Javanese pattern isto note that the glottal stop in Javanese is also restricted to coda position.
Thus, in Javanese the two glottal sounds pattern the same. This suggeststhat there may be languages in which /h/ does not pattern at all withaspirated segments but with other glottal sounds. We could analyze
Javanese as having an active constraint that restricts glottal segments tocoda position and this would outrank any of the alignment constraints
involving [s.g.]. Thus, while our alignment analysis of [s.g.] does not on
its own predict a pattern like that found in Javanese, such a pattern cancome about due to high-ranking constraints that pertain to glottal
segments more generally.29

Conclusion
In summary, in this paper we have oﬀered a detailed optimality-theoretic
analysis of the distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ for both American
English and Korean. Our work is diﬀerent from previous work in thatfor each of these languages we delineate the close parallel in their distribution and show how an optimality-theoretic analysis can account for it.

Aspirated stops and /h/ 643
Our analysis of the distribution is an alignment analysis that makereference to constraints requiring the feature [spread glottis] to be realizedin various positions of salience. We further demonstrated how the alignment analysis predicts a typology of patterning of aspirated stops and[h]. Crucially, the patterning of these sounds is not always predicted to
be closely parallel as in English and Korean, but as we show, a range ofpatterns is predicted and instantiated in various languages. In reality,
our paper only scratches the surface of an interesting issue for phonological analysis. Nonetheless, we believe we have oﬀered a particularapproach to the issue that researchers working on other languages willfind insightful.
Received 27 June 2000
Revised version received
3 May 2002

Indiana University
Pukyong National University

Notes
*

We wish to thank Julie Auger, Karen Baertsch, Kenneth de Jong, Daniel Dinnsen,
John Harris, Beth Hume, Jong-Kyoo Kim, Paul Kiparksy, Minkyung Lee, Shinsook
Lee, Yongsung Lee, John McCarthy, Renate Raﬀelsiefen, Catherine Ringen, Jerzy
Rubach, Toshiyuki Tabata, Mark Van Dam, and the anonymous reviewers for discussion on diﬀerent aspects of this paper. We also wish to thank audiences at the 4th and7th Midcontinental Workshop in Phonology, HILP4, Osaka University of Foreign
Studies, Stanford University, and University of California at Santa Cruz for their
input. The current paper builds on the earlier works of Cho (1998) and Davis (1999a,
1999b). The usual disclaimers apply. Correspondence address: Stuart Davis,
Department of Linguistics, Memorial Hall 322, Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN 47405, USA. E-mail: davis@indiana.edu.
1. We are unaware of previous work by others that details the parallel environments of
the appearance of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English. The pattern ofAmerican English aspiration distribution is well known (though not completely uncontroversial ). The distribution of aspiration that we lay out in this section is virtually
identical to that given in Iverson and Salmons (1995: 374–375), Selkirk (1982),
Kreidler (1989), and Jensen (2000), though only the latter discusses data like that in(4a). There has been much less discussion in the phonological literature on the patternof /h/ distribution in American English. The pattern that we lay out in this section is inagreement with Borowsky (1984, 1986) and Harris (1994, 1997).
2. Kreidler (1989: 76) refers to the /p/ of the initial stressless syllable in Patricia as being
unaspirated. However, Kreidler (1989: 116) clearly states that /p, t, k/ are aspirated
word-initially before a stressless vowel, though the aspiration is weaker. Jensen (2000),Iverson and Salmons (1995), and Selkirk (1982) all indicate aspiration on aword-initial voiceless stop before a stressless vowel. Moreover, Ken de Jong (personalcommunication) points out that the fact that the stressless vowel in the first syllable ofPatricia can be partially voiceless indicates that the initial /p/ is indeed aspirated. Along644 S. Davis and M.-H. Chothese lines, it is important to recall the distinction between aspiration noise and burst
noise so as to eliminate the possible issue that the noise immediately following theinitial stop in (3a) consists only of the burst noise and not aspiration. Johnson (1997:132) is very clear at distinguishing between the two. ‘‘Burst noise is produced at theconsonant place of articulation ( like fricative noise), whereas aspiration noise is produced at the glottis. Thus, the vocal tract filter for the two types of sound sources is
diﬀerent. Also, the burst is very short in duration, whereas aspiration noise may bequite long. For a few milliseconds after a stop closure is released, the constriction is too
narrow to allow the amount of airflow needed to produce aspiration at the glottis.
Thus, immediately after the release, conditions are right for the burst (high-pressurebuildup, very narrow opening) but not for the aspiration; while later, as the constriction is opened further, conditions are right for aspiration (when the constriction is open
enough for a high volume of airflow).’’ Given this, the partial devoicing of the stresslessvowel in the first syllable of Patricia reflects the aspiration of the initial /p/ and not the
burst. This should be compared with a word like bequeath where the stressless vowel ofthe first syllable clearly cannot be devoiced.
3. There seems to be a controversy as to whether the initial voiceless stop in the third
syllable in words like that in (4a) is actually aspirated. One of the anonymous reviewersof this paper as well as Steriade (2000) imply that it is not. On the other hand, both
Jensen (2000: 209) and Pater (2000: 270) explicitly say that such stops are aspirated.
We are unaware of any published phonetic work that addresses this question. However,preliminary work done with naive speakers in the phonetics laboratory at Indiana
University strongly supports the view that the third syllable in such words is aspirated.
Given this, one complication noted by Pater (2000) with the pattern in (4a) concerns
complex words like càpitalı́stic where the first /t/ is not aspirated, but flapped. Pater(2000) relates this to the fact the /t/ is flapped in the base word cápital and suggests a
possible output-to-output correspondence account in an optimality-theoretic framework. Note that all the words in (4) are monomorphemic. This is important because
the data in (4a) show that aspiration is to be expected in the environment indicated.
This is contrary to the following statement in Steriade (2000: 334) about the word
Mediterranean: ‘‘I attribute the unflapped [t] in this unique form to the orthographic
geminate ‘rr’, which is interpreted by speakers as an indication of secondary stress on
the preceding vowel.’’ Steriade’s explanation, though, would fail to account for the
unflapped (aspirated) [t] in Nàvratilóva and Mánitowòc as well as the fact that thevowel of the third syllable in Mediterranean is reduced. Consequently, we maintain,
contrary to Steriade (2000), that the aspiration on the /t/ in Mediterranean, as well asthat on the other relevant stops in the data in (4a), reflects a general pattern.
4. Both Selkirk (1982) and Kreidler (1989) show optionality of aspiration of a word-final(postvocalic) voiceless stop. Thus, the word night can be pronounced with either anaspirated or an unaspirated [t]. However, this is probably only true when the word issaid carefully in isolation or at the end of a phrase; the more natural tendency is topronounce it as unreleased preglottalized. As Iverson and Salmons (1995) indicate, ina context like night owl the /t/ of night would not be aspirated, nor would it be aspirated
in a phrasal context such as the night when we played. We follow Iverson and Salmonsin not indicating a word-final stop in this context as being aspirated.
5. Working within government phonology, Harris (1994, 1997) implicitly notes the parallelism in the distribution of /h/ and aspiration. However, as will be discussed in
section 3, the analysis that Harris oﬀers for /h/ is problematic when extended to theaspiration data.

Aspirated stops and /h/ 645
6. The distribution between aspirated stops and /h/ in American English is closely parallel, not exact. An important diﬀerence between them is that aspirated stops can occur
before the liquids /l, r/ while [h] fails to do so (although in older stages of English, [h]did surface in such position). That is, aspirated stops can appear as a first member of acomplex onset, as in the words play and cry, but [h] does not. We suggest that thisdiﬀerence can be explained in terms of the patterning of American English /h/ as asegment of high sonority. Thus it would not surface as the first member of a complex
onset. Such a view raises the issue of the sonority value of laryngeal consonants. It has
been noted in the literature that laryngeals display variable patterning with respect tothe sonority hierarchy (see, for example, Churma and Shi 1995 for a cross-linguistic
survey and de Lacy 2001 for specific examples of laryngeals patterning as high-sonority
segments with respect to the phonology). Clements (1990: 322) states the following:‘‘Laryngeals tend to behave arbitrarily in terms of the way they class with other sounds... patterning now with obstruents, now with sonorants in a way often better explainedby their historical origin in any given language than by their inherent phonologicalproperties.’’With respect to the appearance of /h/ before glides in American English, many
speakers no longer have the /hw/ sequence in words like what and where (and even for
those that do, it is unclear as to whether it should be analyzed as a sequence or a single
sound, namely as a voiceless labiovelar glide). Some speakers of American English
have a pronounced [h] before the palatal glide in words like huge, [hyu3̆] where the [y]occurs immediately before [u]. However, Davis and Hammond (1995) have argued
that the [y] in a word like huge in American English is actually part of the nucleus
forming an on-glide of a diphthong /yv u/, and so the initial [h] in huge [hyu3̆] would not
be part of a complex onset. Thus, the lack of /h/ as the first member of a complex onset
may be due to its patterning as a high-sonority segment.
A natural question that emerges from the above discussion is why specifically laryngeal consonants show variable cross-linguistic behavior as to whether they pattern likesegments of low sonority or high sonority. We suggest that it is because articulation at
the larynx is ambiguous between reflecting a place of articulation in the vocal tract orreflecting a state of the glottis. In the former case, the laryngeal sound would beinterpreted as being of low sonority since there is an obstruction of air flow in the vocal
tract (at the larynx); in the latter case the laryngeal would be of high sonority since
there would be a free flow of air through the vocal tract. Laryngeals, then, may bephonologically interpreted diﬀerently in diﬀerent languages. American English interprets /h/ as a segment of high sonority.
There can also be a diﬀerence in the patterning between aspiration and /h/ in slow,
careful speech. In such speech almost any stop can be aspirated, even a syllable-final
one (e.g. the /t/ in sit), whereas /h/ in syllable-final position (as in brahmin) is notpronounced. We do not have any clear explanation for this, but we do not consider thisto be a major problem since out paper focuses on casual speech. Relatedly, Kreidler(1989: 116) says obligatory aspiration occurs with a word-final voiceless stop whenafter /s/. This is an environment that is not considered by most other researchers. Some
examples include test, wasp, risk, and breakfast. [h] does not occur in this environment.
However, it should be noted that word-final position after an /s/ is an environmentshown to favor the deletion of a voiceless stop (cf. Guy 1980). This can be seen by thecommon plural form of breakfast as breakfasses. In any case, /h/ would not be expected
to surface in a parallel position (i.e. word-finally after an [s]), given its patterning as asegment of high sonority as discussed above, since English does not allow a coda
cluster of rising sonority to consist of an obstruent followed by a sonorant.

646 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
7. This is clearly seen in (11c), where the /t/ in charity is flapped. This points to afundamental diﬀerence between a voiceless stop at the beginning of a final strandedsyllable, as in (11), versus a voiceless stop at the beginning of a word-internal strandedsyllable, as in (9b). It is only the latter that can be incorporated as the initial syllable ofa superfoot and thus can be aspirated. Relatedly, with respect to a final strandedsyllable, there do not seem to be any words where a final stranded syllable begins witha pronounced [h]. Words like Ómahà and Ídahò tend to carry a secondary stress on the
final syllable. The somewhat obscure pair, Èlohı́m and Éloh–ist is interesting since itshows the deletion of the /h/ at the beginning of a word-final unparsed syllable. If one
were to pronounce Éloh–ist with an [h] then that syllable would almost certainly havesecondary stress. Similarly, when the word véhicle in (6b) is pronounced with a distinct[h] at the beginning of the second syllable, as it can be in some nonstandard American
dialects, stress is also noticeable on that syllable.
8. For a word like lolapalooza McCarthy (1982) posits the following foot structure that
diﬀers from (12b) in that the first three syllables form a superfoot rather than the last
three.

We follow Jensen (2000) in positing the structure in (12b) for a word like lolapalooza.
One argument for the structure in (12b) as opposed to the one above in (i) is that (12b)captures the parallel with words that begin with an initial stressless syllable such as
potato in (3a). In both (12a) and (12b), the first syllable of the superfoot is stressless.
If we adopt (i), we would still need a superfoot with an initial stressless syllable forwords like potato.
9. Jensen (2000: 215), who is ambivalent regarding the utility of an OT analysis forEnglish aspiration, briefly considers and rejects a constraint similar to the one we givein (14) when he says, ‘‘we cannot require that all feet begin with an aspirated stop,
since other segment types must be permitted in that position.’’ The constraint in (14)requires that the foot begin with the feature [s.g.]. However, despite Jensen’s claim, theinclusion of (14) does not mean that all foot-initial segments will have the feature [s.g].
This is because (14) is dominated by the higher-ranked constraint in (15) that militatesagainst voiced aspirated sounds. As we will detail in our analysis, if a voiced sound isin foot-initial position it will surface as such without the feature [s.g.] because of theconstraint in (15). Consequently, other segments besides aspirated ones can occur infoot-initial position, contrary to what Jensen implies.
10. We leave open the question of whether voiceless fricatives are made with the feature[spread glottis] in English (especially in foot-initial position). If not, then a constraint
like *[s.g.,+continuant] would play a role preventing the feature [spread glottis] frombeing realized on fricatives. See Vaux (1998) for interesting discussion suggesting thatvoiceless fricatives can have the feature [spread glottis].

Aspirated stops and /h/ 647
11. In the tableaux, we will not usually consider candidates that violate the undominatedconstraints *[s.g.,+voice] and DEP. Also, for a tableau like (24) we assume a lowranked constraint DEP-sg to account for the addition of [s.g.]. This constraint will not
be indicated. However, it will play a role in our analysis of Korean in section 5. Finally,
we do not account for stress or vowel reduction; for convenience, we assume that stressis part of the input.
12. To reiterate from note 6, the distribution of aspirated stops and [h] is closely parallel,
but not exact, the main diﬀerence being in word-initial position before a sonorantconsonant where aspirated stops can occur (e.g. play, cry), but [h] does not. Also,
Kreidler (1989: 116) mentions that aspiration obligatorily occurs in word-final position
after an [s] (e.g. wasp, test). While we do not agree with Kreidler’s view of the obligatory nature of aspiration in this position (it can be unrealeased or unpronounced),
clearly, [h] cannot surface in this position. As mentioned in note 6, it is possible toaccount for the lack of [h] in these positions if [h] patterns as a segment of high sonority
and so would not surface as the first member of an onset cluster or the second memberof a coda by the regular phonotactics of English. One additional environment thatshould be mentioned where there seems to be a dispute as to whether aspiration occurs
concerns data like that in (i), which according to Selkirk (1982) and Y. Lee (1998)
show optionality.
(i)

a.
b.
c.

fı́lter [th] or [t]wı́mpy [ph] or [p]fálcon [kh] or [k]The aspirated stop is in an onset following a coda sonorant of a stressed syllable.
Interestingly, what has not been noted is that in the same environment /h/ can be
optionally deleted, as shown in (ii), thus reflecting parallel behavior with the aspirated
stops.
(ii)a.
b.

philharmonic [h] or h–.
Amherst[h] or h–.

Impressionistically, the /h/ in (ii) and the aspirated stops in (i) surface when the syllable
that they are in is pronounced with secondary stress, though the appearance of secondary stress seems more probable in (ii) than in (i).
13. The constraint MAX-sg requires that the feature [spread glottis] in the input be realized
in the output. If one were to develop the analysis along these lines, it could be maintained that MAX-sg would also play a role in the analysis of (5b), (6b), and (7b),where /h/ does not surface. The winning candidates would violate this constraint. Since/h/ only has the feature [spread glottis] as shown in (8a), when that feature does notsurface on /h/ then the result would be the deletion of the entire phoneme. In our
discussion of aspirated stops and /h/ in Korean in sections 4 and 5, we do make use of
Max-sg, given that aspirated stops are phonemes in the language.
14. We say ‘‘normally’’ because, as an anonymous reviewer points out, a word-internal,
stem-initial /h/ in onset position can be pronounced, though it would usually delete incasual speech. An example would be /i-ha/  [iha] or [ia] ‘below’. This should becompared with the stem-final /h/ in words like (54), where it obligatorily deletes. Since
our focus is on casual speech, we will not be concerned with accounting for the
potential lack of deletion of stem-initial /h/ in forms like /i-ha/.
15. The underlying forms in (50) and (51) can be justified based on morphophonemic
alternations such as nip ‘swamp’–niph-ese ‘swamp ( locative)’ for (51a) and coha ‘like(stative)’–cokho ‘like (and)’ for (50c). It should be noted that the /h/ in coha deletes,

648 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.
21.

22.

23.

but its eﬀect can be seen in cokho, where it triggers aspiration of the /h/. Relatedly, theeﬀect of the underlying /h/ in the monomorphemic forms of (50a) and (50e) can beseen in its triggering of aspiration in (50b) and (50f ), respectively.
We are not aware of any previous work on Korean phonology that specifically tries toaccount for the distribution of aspiration and /h/ in a unified way. Within optimality
theory, works such as S. Lee (1998) and Cho and Lee (1999) deal with aspects of /h/
distribution but do not connect it to aspiration.
The forms in (51c) and (51d) reflect the independent process in Korean of consonant
tensification: when two obstruents come together over a syllable boundary, the second
one is tensified. It should be noted that in the Korean phonemic inventory, there is awell-known three-way laryngeal contrast in the stop series. These include the aspirated
stops /ph, th, kh/, the tense (fortis) stops /p", t", k"/, and the plain (unaspirated) stops/p, t, k/. Additionally, the plain stops are realized as voiced intervocalically, but we do
not indicate this in the transcribed data.
The phonetic form in (56f ) reflects the Korean palatalization process, which has theeﬀect of palatalizing coronals before the high front vowel.
In very rapid speech it is possible to reduce the secondary stress on a word like ‘‘uphill’’as in the phrase ‘‘an uphill battle.’’ Impressionistically, in such a phrase the word‘‘uphill’’ could be pronounced as [v́pIl ] without aspiration.
Only the voiceless stops /p/, /t/, /k/, and the voiceless aﬀricate /c/ can be aspirated
in Korean.
Given the role of AlignL(Ft,[sg]) in the analysis of American English presented in
section 3, the constraint in (58), AlignL( Word,[sg]) would be vacuous in American
English since word-initial position is also a foot-initial position. The *h constraint in(59) does not play an independent role in the analysis of American English. We assume
that it would be low-ranked.
In note 11, we mentioned that the constraint Dep-sg is low-ranked for English. That is,given the common assumption that English voiceless stops are not specified as having
the feature [s.g.] in underlying representation, the feature is added when voiceless stops
are in foot-initial position. Since aspiration is allophonic in English, this does not resultin any neutralization of stop consonants. In Korean, on the other hand, aspiration isphonemic, as evidenced by minimal pairs like [phul ] ‘grass’ vs. [pul ] ‘fire’. This meansthat the feature [s.g.] is crucially present in the underlying representation of certain
voiceless stops, such as in the initial voiceless labial in [phul ] ‘grass’. The Dep-sg
constraint is high-ranking in Korean, thus preventing [s.g.] from being realized onvoiceless stops where it is not underlyingly present. Thus, the initial labial of [pul ] ‘fire’
does not have [s.g.] added to it. Despite the diﬀerence between English and Korean
with respect to the phonemic status of aspiration, there is a similarity in the patterningof [s.g.] in the two languages in that when [s.g.] does surface it is always in a position
that is syllable-initial.
Further, an anonymous reviewer raises the issue as to whether the constraint in (60)should be termed Ident-sg rather than Dep-sg. The use of Dep feature constraints isappropriate for features like [s.g.] that are considered as monovalent because such
constraints militate against feature insertion. The Ident feature constraints are appropriate for features that are understood to be binary such as [±sonorant] since Ident
constraints militate against a change in the feature value.
In the tableaux we show no diﬀerence in the ranking between Max-sg and MAX(indicated by the dotted line) since we are not aware of data that show a crucial ranking
between them. Also, while the winning candidate shown in (67c) violates both Max-sg
and MAX, data like that in (56) with aspiration merger would involve forms that

Aspirated stops and /h/ 649

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

violate MAX without violating Max-sg. In (56), the phoneme (root node) /h/ deletes,
but the [spread glottis] feature surfaces on the neighboring stop.
We leave open the question of whether voiceless continuant sounds in Korean can takethe feature [s.g.]. Typically, fricatives like [s] are not described in Korean as having thefeature [s.g.], but the work of Vaux (1998) raises the possibility that they may, though
he does not specifically discuss Korean. Relatedly, it should be noted that Korean does
have the aspirated palatoalveolar aﬀricate /ch/. Given this, an interesting candidate forthe input /coha/ in (57c) is [choa] where the aspiration is preserved on the initialphoneme. That is, in comparing data with and without aspiration merger in (56) and(57), one notes that the [s.g.] feature of the /h/ can only surface on an adjacentconsonant and is never ‘‘thrown back’’ to some other consonant, as in the hypothetical[choa] from /coha/. However, given the constraint ranking reflected by the tableau in(74), the hypothetical candidate [choa] would be selected over the actual candidate[coa]. In order to eliminate [choa] as a winning candidate, one can split the constraint*MC into two types, one that militates against the coalescence of adjacent elements
and one that militates against the coalescence of nonadjacent elements. We assume thatthe latter is undominated in Korean, preventing [choa] from surfacing.
See Kim-Renaud (1986: 20–21) for the phonetic motivation behind the tensification
process. It is interesting to note that tense consonants have the same distribution as
aspirated stops. Under the view that tense consonants have the laryngeal feature[constricted glottis] (e.g. Cho and Inkelas 1994), the alignment constraint in (58)
involving [s.g] can be considered as pertaining to a laryngeal alignment constraint
more generally.
The ranking in (80) predicts that tensification should occur with a suﬃx-initial aspirated stop that follows a root-final obstruent so that the hypothetical /nop-tha/ would
be realized as [nop.t"a]. Korean, however, lacks suﬃxes beginning with underlying
aspirated stops. Along these lines, it should be noted that in compound words like/cek+tho/ ‘red dirt’, aspiration is preserved ([cek.tho]); but this could be due tohigh-ranking AlignL( Word,[sg]), and so may not be predictive for suﬃxes.
Beckman (1997) develops a positional faithfulness account of prominent positions,while Zoll (1997) develops a licensing account. It is beyond the scope of the present
paper to address our alignment analysis in light of these works.
An alignment analysis involving [s.g.], somewhat similar to ours though not as developed, is briefly sketched out by Vijayakrishnan (1999) as part of a paper that was to bepresented as a poster paper at the HILP 4 meeting in Leiden. Our work is independentof his.
Along similar lines, there are languages such as the Cariban language Tiriyó (Parker
2001; Meira 2001) where the only coda consonants allowed are nasals homorganic to afollowing onset and /h/, which only can surface as a coda. Here, we can understand the
distribution of /h/ more in terms of its lack of place features than of any relevantalignment constraint. That is, the consonants that appear in the coda must lack any
independent place features. This situation, not uncommon, can be analyzed by aconstraint permitting only onsets to license place features, perhaps along the lines ofGoldsmith (1990) or Ito et al. (1995).

650 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (1995). Bare. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Beckman, Jill (1997). Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel
harmony. Phonology 14, 1–46.
Borowsky, Toni (1984). On resyllabification in English. West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics 3, 1–15.
—(1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Cho, Mi-Hui (1998). A comparison between /h/ in English and Korean. Unpublishedmanuscript, Pukyong National University, Pusan, Korea.
—; and Lee, Shinsook (1999). A prosodically bounded constraint analysis of ordering
problems. Chicago Linguistic Society 35, 29–41.
Cho, Young-mee Yu; and Inkelas, Sharon (1994). Post-obstruent tensification in Korean
and geminate inalterability. In Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, Young-Key
Kim-Renaud (ed.), 45–60. Stanford: CSL.
Churma, Donald; and Shi, Yili (1995). Glottal consonants and the sonority hierarchy. Paper
presented at Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Dartmouth College.
Clements, George N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers
in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, John Kingston
and Mary Beckman (eds.), 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, Stuart (1999a). On the distribution of /h/ and aspirated stops in American English.
Paper presented at HILP 4, University of Leiden, January 28–30.
—(1999b). The parallel distribution of aspirated stops and /h/ in American English. Indiana
University Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 1–10.
—; and Hammond, Michael (1995). On the status of on-glides in American English.
Phonology 12, 159–182.
—; and Lee, Jinseong (1996). Korean partial reduplication reconsidered. Lingua 99, 85–105.
de Lacy, Paul (2001). Markedness in prominent positions. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Giegerich, Heinz (1992). English Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsmith, John (1990). Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Goldstein, Louis (1992). Comments on chapters 3 and 4. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology
II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, Gerard Docherty and D. Robert Ladd (eds.), 120–124.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guy, Gregory (1980). Variation in the group and the individual. In Locating Language inTime and Space, William Labov (ed.), 1–36. New York: Academic Press.
Hall, Tracy (1992). Syllable Structure and Syllable-Related Processes in German. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Halle, Morris; and Stevens, Kenneth (1971). A note on laryngeal features. Quarterly
Progress Reports 101, 198–212. Cambridge, MA: Research Laboratory of Electronics,
MIT.
Harris, John (1994). English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
—(1997). Licensing inheritance: an integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 14,
315–370.
Haspelmath, Martin (1997). Languages of the World/Materials [Book notice]. Language7, 445–446.

Aspirated stops and /h/ 651
Hayes, Bruce (1981). A metrical theory of stress rules. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
MIT. (Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.)
Horne, Elinor (1961). Beginning Javanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ito, Junko; Mester, Armin; and Padgett, Jaye (1995). Licensing and underspecification in
optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 571–613.
Iverson, Gregory; and Salmons, Joseph (1995). Aspiration and laryngeal representation inGermanic. Phonology 12, 369–396.
—; and Sohn, Hyangsook (1994). Liquid representation in Korean. In Theoretical Issues in
Korean Linguistics, Young-Key Kim-Renaud (ed.), 77–100. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Jensen, John (2000). Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17, 187–235.
Johnson, Keith (1997). Acoustic and Auditory Phonetics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Jun, Jongho (1994). Metrical weight consistency in Korean partial reduplication. Phonology
11, 69–88.
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, MIT. (Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club,
Bloomington.)
Kim, Jongkyoo (1998). Anti-trapping eﬀects in an iambic system: vowel shortening in
Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 8, 289–303.
Kim-Renaud, Young-Key (1986). Studies in Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin.
Kreidler, Charles (1989). The Pronunciation of English: A Course Book in Phonology.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Lamontagne, Gregory; and Rice, Keren (1995). A correspondence account of coalescence.
In Papers in Optimality Theory, Jill Beckman et al. (eds.), 211–223. Massachusetts
Occasional Papers 18. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Lee, Jinseong (1992). Phonology and sound symbolism of Korean ideophones. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Lee, Sechang (1998). On the irregular behavior of h in Korean. Japanese/Korean Linguistics
7, 585–593.
Lee, Yongsung (1998). Aspiration in English: a case of low level variation. Journal of
Language Sciences 5(2), 395–413.
Lim, Byungjin (1999). The role of syllable weight and position on prominence in Korean.
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 9, 139–150.
McCarthy, John (1982). Prosodic structure and explitive infixation. Language 58, 574–590.
—; and Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in Optimality
Theory, Jill Beckman et al. (eds.), 249–384. Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. Amherst:
GLSA, University of Massachusetts.
Meira, Sérgio (2001). Linguistic theory and linguistic description: the case of Tiriyó [h].
International Journal of American Linguistics 67, 119–135.
Nespor, Marina; and Vogel, Irene (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Oliveira, Christiana C. (1998). Vowel harmony in Bare. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of America, New York.
Parker, Steve (2001). On the phonemic status of [h] in Tiriyó. International Journal of
American Linguistics 67, 105–118.
Pater, Joe (2000). Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked andlexically-specific constraints. Phonology 17, 237–274.
Pierrehumbert, Janet; and Talkin, David (1992). Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop. In Papers
in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, Gerard Docherty and D. RobertLadd (eds.), 90–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982). The syllable. In The Structure of Phonological Representations,
Part II, Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.), 337–383. Dordrecht: Foris.

652 S. Davis and M.-H. Cho
Spencer, Andrew (1996). Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Steriade, Donca (1993). Closure, release, and nasal contours. In Phonetics and Phonology,
vol. 5: Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum, Marie Huﬀman and Rena Krakow (eds.),
401–470. San Diego: Academic Press.
—(2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Papers
in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon, Michael Broe and Janet
Pierrehumbert (eds.), 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tak, Jinyoung (1997). Issues in Korean consonantal phonology. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University.
Vaux, Bert (1998). The laryngeal specifications of fricatives. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 497–511.
Vijayakrishnan, K. G. (1999). Weakening processes in the optimality framework.
Unpublished manuscript, CIBEL, Hyderabad, India.
Withgott, Mary (1982). Segmental evidence for phonological constituents. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Zoll, Cheryl (1997). Conflicting directionality. Phonology 14, 263–286.