Markedness and Kernel Clauses

[Lighthouse1971b]

I've been studying Huddleston again, and I need some more help.

He outlines the fact that the unmarked form of a "system" is the most syntactically basic form (eg. declarative) and that marked forms are those that contain extra elements or have restricted order and sometimes even have fewer elements at first glance (eg. interrogative, passive).

When he refers to the "economy" of the unmarked form, I get the impression that he is implying that the unmarked form is labeled as unmarked for the sake of convenience. It's seen as being more basic because it is more convenient to do so because of its application in a wide diversity of contexts. It's easier to put it in the "at all other times" basket. God knows how I'm supposed to differentiate between marked and umarked forms without a guru to guide me.

Knowing full well that I might not yet have that right, I have foraged onward and become quite confused. He says "A form which is maximally basic, one which does not belong to a marked term in any system, is called a kernel form." What the heck does that mean?

Are kernel forms basically unmarked forms on which transformations are performed? Who decides which structures qualify as kernel forms? Is it the Jolly Green Giant?

Help!!!

[LarryLatham]

Hi there Lighthouse1971b,

I have not studied Huddleston (directly), and so I probably should not stick my neck out here. (But I just can't seem to learn when to shut up).

I suppose we should remember that he is probably talking about all languages, and not just English. So some of his comments may come across as more 'general' than might be needed if he were only talking about English. Perhaps, when he speaks of an unmarked form, he means (for English) a simple declarative sentence with a Present Simple verb. Such a sentence is unmarked not because it is in the 'all other cases' basket, but because no nuance of interpretation is intended. It is no more or less than exactly what is declared.

Massage feels great.

The sentence has no modifiers, no tense or aspect markers to imply interpretations of temporal elements or remoteness, no verbals operating as other parts of speech. In short, it is uncomplicated...unmarked. Neither the speaker nor the listener has any work to do except to understand the basic Subject/Verb/Complement structure which underpins English. Adding anything to it, or changing any of the word forms, would mark it.

(In reading this over, I wonder if this just isn't obvious to everybody. Maybe I haven't added anything of value here...I really should learn to shut up.)

I am afraid I've never heard of "kernel forms" before, so I can't be of much help there. Maybe someone else, a linguist, a student of Huddleston, someone very wise can.

Larry Latham

[Lighthouse1971b]

Thanks for your input, Larry. It did help me to refocus. I found another section of the book where it was made a lot more clear. He starts with a sentence:

1. Unfortnuately, my uncle was using an electric drill at that very moment.

All clauses need a verb phrase, and "was using" serves that function here. If you strip away everything that's not closely related to the verb phrase, you have the kernel clause:

2. My uncle was using an electric drill.

The kernel clause thing is pretty basic, actually. However, I'm still unsure about markedness. Is clause 2 marked? Huddleston would say no. For example, he says that declarative is always unmarked:

Dillinger had sued Tom.

and Interrogative is marked:

Had Dillinger sued Tom?

So it's not merely a matter of which is more simple in syntax. Markedness seems to be independent of tense or aspect.

Can anybody else shed light on this?

[Al]

So it's not merely a matter of which is more simple in syntax. Markedness seems to be independent of tense or aspect.

That certainly can be the case where syntactical variation is constrained. In English at least, intonation will often do what syntax doesn't.

Al

[LarryLatham]

I see the point about the kernel clause, and it makes sense.

Perhaps Huddleston is using "unmarked" in a different sense than I do, because I would say that, "Dillinger had sued Tom" is marked. If the sentence was, "Dillinger sues Tom", I would say that one is unmarked (despite the fact that it appears to be an unusual sentence, at least out of context).

Changing it to "Dillinger sued Tom" marks it for remoteness.

Making it "Dillinger had sued Tom" marks it for perfection, in my view.

In both cases, some interpretative work must be done both by the producer and the receiver. "Dillinger sues Tom" is a simple assertion of fact...period.

Apparently, Huddleston doesn't see it that way. But I agree that, "Unfortunately, my uncle was using an electric drill at that very moment" is marked in several ways, both by the verb form and by the various appendages and modifiers which describe and restrict the meaning.

Larry Latham

[Ed]

Maybe I can help a bit.

In Linguistics, "marked" means "exceptional", while "unmarked" is something "normal" or "usual". For example, in English the unmarked word order for "modifier" (M) and "head" (H) is M+H, as in "tall man" or "very interesting" or "rather quickly".
The following examples, on the other hand, are marked because they do not observe the normal word order (they are set phrases, stylistically marked):

court martial
attorney general
notary public

(From Radford's Transformational Grammar)

Ed

[metal56]

Do you mean kernel clauses?

Are kernel forms basically unmarked forms on which transformations are performed?

As far as I understand them, kernel clauses are the basic unmarked clauses that have transformations (marking) done to them.

Who decides which structures qualify as kernel forms? Is it the Jolly Green Giant?

LOL!

Does it need a giant, or one of the Seven Dwarves, to identify this as a kernel:

John walks to school.

A sentence based on obligatory sentence constituents is unextended simple (or kernel) sentence, and a sentence based on both obligatory and optional constituents is an extended simple sentence. Cf. Mary put the book on the shelf. vs. Mary put the book on the shelf yesterday.

http://www.vpu.lt/lt/padal.getfile/77

[Lighthouse1971b]

Thanks, everybody, for all of these responses. It has given me great food for thought. Larry, I think you and Huddleston agree. I've read yet further, and he sees markedness as being relative to what he calls "systems".

For example, the declarative is unmarked in what I will call the "ive" system. Interrogative, Declarative, Imperative.

On the other hand, your example (where you feel sure that simple present is unmarked) is referring to a different "system" in English (perhaps the "system" of aspect (simple, perfective, progressive).

I'm still just thinking aloud here, but I think Huddleston is treating markedness that way.