Language and Music in Optimality Theory
• Structural resemblance between language and music
• Claim: every form of temporally ordered behaviour is structured the same way
• Claim: insights of music theory can help out in phonological issues
• Rate adjustments in language and music: compression or restructuring?
Outline
• Jackendoff & Lerdahl (1980) point out the resemblance between the ways both linguists and musicologists structure their research objects.
• Lerdahl & Jackendoff (1983) A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Synthesis of linguistic methodology and
the insights of music theory
Jackendoff and Lerdahl
• Description of how a listener (mostly unconciously) constructs connections in the perceived sounds
• The listener is capable of recognizing the construction of a piece of music by considering some notes/chords as more prominent than others
A Generative Theory of Tonal Music
cf. Language• Our cognition thus works in a way
comparable to how a reader divides a text (often unconciously too) into different parts
• The research object is structured hierarchically and in each domain the important (heads) and less important (dependents) constituents are defined by preference rules
• Preference rules determine which outputs, i.e. the possible interpretations of a musical piece, are well-formed
A Generative Theory of Tonal Music
(Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983)
Preference Rules
• Preference rules indicate the optimal interpretation of a piece. Some outputs are more preferred than others
• Preference rules, however, are not strict claims on outputs. It is even possible for a preferred interpretation of a musical piece to violate a certain preference rule as long as this violation leads to the satisfaction of a more important preference rule
• Optimality Theory is a theory of language and grammar in which well-formedness constraints on outputs determine grammaticality.
• These constraints apply simultaneously to representations of structures. They are potentially conflicting and they are soft, which means violable.
cf. Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993)
Structuring of the Domains
Tuxedo Junction
motif
section
phrase
Prosodic Construction of a Phrase
x x x x x x x x x x x xMis sis sip pi Del ta
s w s w s w
w s s
w
syllable level
foot level
phrase level
Comparison structuring rules
• Music:The domains in the music theory are called Time-spans: Rhythmical units constructed from the interaction of the metrical structure and the grouping structure.
• metrical structure
(lower domains): = = ...• melodic/harmonic (or grouping) structure
(higher domains): motif < phrase < section ...
XTC:English roundabout
• Language: phoneme < (syllable) < (foot) < (phrase)
p pa papa de oude papa
phoneme < morpheme < word < compound
p -pje bloempje muurbloempje
Comparison structuring rules
Comparison Preference Rules
Comparison preference rules 1
• Music (time-span reduction preference rule 1):
Choose as the head of a time-span the chord (or the note) which is in a relative strong metrical position (= the first position in a measure)
• Language:
Choose the first in a as the head
Arguments for trochaic feet
Neologisms: Acquisition data:Cito, Prolog, Brinta
Mispronunciations:narcis, parfum
1;6
Comparison preference rules 2
• Music (time-span reduction preference rule 2):Choose as the head of a time-span the chord (or the note) which is relatively harmonically consonant (segmental markedness)
• Language (peak prominence): Choose as the head the heaviest available syllable
Comparison preference rules
• Language:Peak Prominence: stress the heaviest available syllable: CVVC; CVCC > CVC; CVV > CV
ki.dharas.baabreez.ga.rii
sa.mi.tiru.kaa.yaaaas.maan.jaah
Stress assignment in Hindi: Peak Prom. >> Nonfinality
Comparison preference rules
• Music (time-span reduction preference rule 2):
Choose as the head of a time-span the chord (or the note) which is relatively harmonically consonant (segmental markedness)
C > C7 > … > Csus4 > Cdim
Over smaak valt te twisten
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
Fifth C - G
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
C - Gb
C vs C0
• C > CdimTime (s)
0 0.02-0.5
0.5
0
Fifth C - G
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
C - Gb
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
Fifth C - G
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
C - Gb
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
Fifth C - G
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
C - Gb
C vs C0
• C > CdimTime (s)
0 0.02-0.5
0.5
0
Fifth C - G
Time (s)0 0.02
-0.5
0.5
0
C - Gb
C vs C0
• wave C+G
Time (s)0 0.0951548
-0.953
0.953
0
C vs C0
• wave C+Gb
Time (s)0 0.0945913
-0.9987
0.9987
0
Comparison preference rules
• Music (time-span reduction preference rule 7):Choose as the head of a time-span the chord (or the note) which emphasizes the end of a group as a cadence
tonic > dominant > subdominant > parallel ...
• cf. Language: Phrasal rule
C7-B
C7-F
cadence
Tonic - Dominant - Subdominant
• Examples of 3 chord songs:mccoys - hang on sloopy (russell & farrell)royal guardsmen - snoopy vs. the red baron (gernhard & holler)rolling stones - get off of my cloud (jagger & richard)grease soundtrack -summer nights (jacobs & casey)any trouble - second choice (gregson)sonics - psycho (roslie)standells - sometimes good guys don’t wear white (cobb)r.e.m.- stand! (buck, stipe, mills, berry)
rare breed - beg, borrow and steal (difrancesco & zerato)kingsmen - louie louie (r.berry)
Time-span reduction
Conflict TSRPR1 - TSRPR7
Mozart: Sonata K.331, I
Time-spans
Conflict
The A6-chord is in a metrically stronger position, but E-chord is harmonically more consonant
constraints TSRPR 7 TSRPR 2 TSRPR 1
candidates
E
A6 *!
*
*
syllabe
onset rhyme
margin nucleus
pre-m. m.core satellite peak satellite coda app.
k l k
b r o d
s t u l
First Language Acquisition Data
segmental & positional markedness: same preference
syllabe
onset rhyme
margin nucleus
pre-m. m.core satellite peak satellite coda app.
s x a p
Segmental markedness: /s/ > /x/Positional markedness: /x/ > /s/
*Complex >> Pos. Markedness >> Segm. Markedness
(2;0)
• Structural resemblance between language and music (cf. also Lasher (1978), Gilbers (1984, 1987), Mallen (2000), Gilbers & Schreuder 2002))
Every form of temporally ordered behaviour is structured the same way
Conclusion