From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Phonology 2 Morphology 3 Syntax 4 Bibliography

[edit] 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 /.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Syntax

Implicational hierarchies also play a role in syntactic phenomena. For instance, in some languages (e.g. 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.

[edit] 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.