Everything about Implicational Hierarchy totally explained
Implicational hierarchy is a chain of implicational
universals.A set of chained universals is schematically shown as in (1):
(1)
A > B > C > D
It can be reformulated in the following way: If a language has property D, then it also has properties A, B, and C; if a language has a property C, then it also has properties A and B, etc. In other words, the implicational hierarchy defines the possible combinations of properties A, B, C, and D as listed in matrix (2):
| |
A |
B |
C |
D |
| Type 1: |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Type 2: |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
| Type 3: |
+ |
+ |
- |
- |
| Type 4: |
+ |
- |
- |
- |
| Type 5: |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Implicational hierarchies are a useful tool in capturing linguistic generalizations
pertaining the different components of the language. They are found in all subfields of grammar.
Phonology
(3) is an example of an implicational hierarchy concerning the distribution of nasal phonemes across languages, which concerns dental/alveolar, bilabial, and palatal voiced nasals,
respectively:
(3)
/ n / > / m / > / ɲ /
This hierarchy defines the following possible combinations of dental/alveolar, bilabial, and palatal voiced nasals in
the phoneme inventory of a language:
(4)
| |
/ n / |
/ m / |
/ ɲ / |
| Type 1: |
/ n / |
/ m / |
/ ɲ / |
| Type 2: |
/ n / |
/ m / |
- |
| Type 3: |
/ n / |
- |
- |
In other words, the hierarchy implies that there are no languages with / ɲ / but without / m / and / n /, or with / ɲ / and / m / but without / n /.
Morphology
Number marking provides an example of implicational hierarchies in morphology.
(5)
Number: singular < plural < dual < trial / paucal
On the one hand, the hierarchy implies that no language distinguishes a trial unless having a dual, and no language has dual without a plural. On the other hand, the hierarchy provides implications for the morphological marking: if the plural is coded with a certain number of morphemes, then the dual is coded with at least as many morphemes.
Syntax
Implicational hierarchies also play a role in syntactic phenomena. For instance, in some languages (for example
Tangut) the transitive verb agrees not with a subject, or the object, but with the syntactic argument which is higher on the person hierarchy.
(5)
Person: first < second < third
See also:
animacy.
Bibliography
- Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edn.
- Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- Whaley, L.J. (1997). Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Newbury Park: Sage.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Implicational Hierarchy'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://implicational_hierarchy.totallyexplained.com">Implicational hierarchy Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
