Three theories of English plosives: the myth

of deaspiration
Abstract: There are no unaspirated voiceless plosives in English, only unaspirated
voiced plosives and aspirated voiceless plosives. All voiceless plosives in English are
aspirated.
The standard theory we all learnt as undergrads tells us that English prevocalic voiceless
plosives come in two flavors, aspirated when syllable initial and unaspirated otherwise.
The standard theory we all learnt as undergrads cant be right: it entails that voiced
plosives cannot occur in syllable-second position. Such a prohibition a) has no
justification and b) is absurd the unaspirated voiceless plosives that the standard
allophonic theory predicts do occur in that position sound just like voiced plosives. Ive
got two replacement theories to offer, neither perfect but both better than the standard.
The basic facts are these: a) English voiced plosives are unaspirated throughout the
language; b) there is therefore no way to distinguish unaspirated voiceless plosives from
voiced plosives in English there is no difference in English between the sequences
[skIl]; and [sgIl]: the word skill may as well be [s]+gill as [s]+kill with
deaspiriation of the k. The former analysis is simpler it requires no stipulation
about deaspiration of /k/. English speakers bias towards the latter, more complex,
analysis, reflects mere spelling convention. Yet the more complex, spelling-biased
theory is the standard linguistics textbook theory.
Heres the problem. The standard spelling biased theory has two rules:
1) voiceless aspirated prevocalic initials (e.g., pill, till and kill) are deaspirated
when preceded by [s];
2) [b], [d] and [g] never occur preceded by [s] and followed by a vowel (they never
occur in the deaspiration environment of 1).
On this theory, the phonemes /p/, /t/ and /k/ have two rule-governed allophonic
pronunciations in prevocalic position: aspirated (syllable initial) and unaspirated
(preceded by [s]).
Rule (1) is pedagogically useful for teaching the notion of the phoneme, complementary
distribution and the allophone to students in their first exposure to linguistics. That may
be why it persists. It has the unfortunate consequence of interpreting all plosives
wedged between [s] and a vowel as deaspirated voiceless consonants, leaving no room
for voiced plosives in that position. And there is no natural justification for a prohibition
on voiced plosives in this position. Why shouldnt the phonemes /b/, /d/ and /g/ occur
there? After all, unaspirated /p/, /t/ and /k/ occur there and they sound exactly like [b],
[d] and [g]. The prohibition is patently counterfactual: it says voiced plosives cant
occur in exactly the environment in which they do occur. This is not merely
unjustifiable; it is preposterous.
A Simplest Answer

Consider a simpler theory without allophones: /p/, /t/ and /k/ are pronounced as
aspirated [p], [t] and [k] wherever they are fully articulated; they are prohibited from
occurring in the syllable second position by a double aspiration rule that is generally
true of English consonant sequences. [fs] in Russian, not in English. There are only four
English words with syllable initial double sequential aspirations and they are all Greek
borrowings: sphere, sphinx, sphincter and sphalerite. I dont know anyone but me who
pronounces the labiodental initial of phthisic but, then, I dont know anyone else
who pronounces the word at all. Even the lexicographers have dropped the [f].
Sequential onset aspiration is a foreign imposition on the natural phonology of English.
This holds even in coda position: the aspirated /k/ of ask loses its aspiration when
followed by a vowel (ask anyone).
This theory is considerably simpler and better than the standard. Theres only one rule,
that rule has some natural justification and it does not lead to the standards absurdity.
The rule: no voiceless plosives following [s] and preceding a vowel.
On this theory, in the onset /g/ is [g] and /k/ is [kh]. No allophones, no need, even, for
phonemes. What you hear is what you get. Its all phonetic, not phonological. If you
want a justification for phonemes and allophones and complementary distribution, you
have to look at environments where the plosives are not fully articulated. For example,
the aspiration of /k/ is absorbed by [s] in text ([tEkst]); the /t/ loses is aspiration when
followed by a vowel (textile USA pronunciation, not where its divided into
tex+tile) and the /t/ reduces to zero when followed by a consonant in textbook.
These should suffice to serve the pedagogical function of introducing the notion of
complimentary distribution, the phoneme and allophony.
A Problem for the Simple One-Rule Theory
Theres a serious problem with this theory. Consider discourage. On the standard
theory, courage is underlyingly represented with an initial /k/ phoneme. Under the
standard theory, allophonic variation in /k/ is induced by the presence of a syllable
initial [s]. So, under the standard theory, discourage and courage are both
represented with an underlying /k/ phoneme.
But under the simple theory, /k/ is prohibited from occurring after the [s]. These two
words have different underlying representations, courage with a /k/ and discourage
with a /g/.
Now, it does happen that morphology sometimes violates phonology. For example, the
plural of text is required under English morphology to violate the syllable structure
and consonant cluster constraints of English. Outside of such plurals and 3rd person
singulars, English doesnt permit consonant clusters of such length as [ksts] and any
such concatenation of sounds would require division into two syllables.
An Unwelcome Solution
But the title of this entry refers to Three Theories so weve still got one to go.
Heres a hybrid theory. Voiceless plosives become voiced when preceded by [s] and
followed by a vowel. Heres how this theory works:

The voiceless plosives share an allophone with the voiced plosives. /k/ and /g/, for
example, are two distinct phonemes, but /k/ is sometimes pronounced the same as the
/g/ phoneme is pronounced. So the underlying representation of courage and
discourage both have the /k/, but in courage it is pronounced as an aspirated
voiceless plosive, in discourage it is pronounced as a voiced plosive.
On this theory, there is no prohibition rule. Voiced plosives may appear before a vowel
following [s]. So may voiceless plosives, but only in their unaspirated, voiced form.
Here is the unwelcome consequence: there is no way to determine on this theory
whether skill has an underlying /k/ or an underlying /g/. In addition, the allophony
requires a feature-changing rule and who really likes a feature-changing rule? Nobody
talks to them at parties.
Sum
Cast in a more contemporary theory that regards features rather than phonemes, the
three theories look like this:
Standard plosives have place and voice features, but pick up aspiration by rule.
Simple plosives are specified for place, voice and (redundantly) aspiration.
Unwelcome plosives are specified for place and voice, but change voicing by rule.
The standard theory entails a preposterous prohibition. The simple theory entails
changing underlying representations of identical morphemes. The unwelcome theory
has a feature-changing rule. Take your pick.
An afterthought
The simplest analysis of skill under the unwelcome theory is [s]+/g/ it requires
fewer rules. But the theory already contains the feature-changing rule, so the more
complex analysis is not ruled out even for economys sake. One may, however, assume
that, ceteris paribus, a [g] is a /g/.