Upload
dolien
View
237
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Rhythm and Phrasingin Language and Music (part 1)
Dicky Gilbers & Maartje Schreuder
Paper available onhttp://www.let.rug.nl/~gilbers/papers
http://www.let.rug.nl/~schreudr/
Faculty of ArtsDepartment of L inguis tics
P.O. Box 7169700 AS Groningen
T he Netherlands
• Structural resemblance between language andmusic
• Claim: every form of temporally orderedbehaviour is structured the same way
• Claim: insights of music theory can help out inphonological issues
• Rate adjustments in language and music:rhythmic variability
Outline
• Jackendoff & Lerdahl (1980) point out theresemblance between the ways both linguistsand musicologists structure their researchobjects
• Lerdahl & Jackendoff (1983) A GenerativeTheory 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 theperceived sounds
• The listener is capable of recognizing the construction of a pieceof music by considering some notes/chords as more prominentthan others
A Generative Theory of Tonal Music
cf. Language
• Our cognition thus works in a way comparableto how a reader divides a text (oftenunconciously too) into different parts
• The research object is structured hierarchicallyand in each domain the important (heads) andless important (dependents) constituents aredefined by preference rules
• Preference rules determine which outputs, i.e. thepossible interpretations of a musical piece, arewell-formed
A Generative Theory of TonalMusic
(Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983)
Preference Rules
• Preference rules indicate the optimalinterpretation of a piece
• Preference rules, however, are not strictclaims on outputs
• It is even possible for a preferred interpretation of amusical piece to violate a certain preference rule aslong as this violation leads to the satisfaction of amore important preference rule
2
• This evaluation system appears to be veryfamiliar to linguists
• In OT well-formedness constraints onoutputs also determine grammaticality
Optimality Theory(Prince & Smolensky 1993)
Potentially Conflicting, Soft Constraints
• In both theories well-formedness constraintson outputs apply simultaneously torepresentations of structures
• In both theories these constraints arepotentially conflicting and they are soft,which means violable
Structuring of the Domains
Tuxedo Junction
motif
section
phrase
Prosodic Construction of a Phrase
x x xx x xx 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 Preference Rules
3
Comparison preference rules 1
• Music (time-span reduction preference rule 1):
Choose as the head of a time-span the chord (orthe note) which is in a relative strong metricalposition (= the first position in a measure)
• Language:
Choose the first σ in a Σ as the head
Arguments for trochaic feet
Mispronunciations: Acquisition data: 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 (orthe note) which is relatively harmonicallyconsonant (segmental markedness)
• Language (peak prominence):
Choose as the head the heaviest available syllable
Comparison preference rules
• Music (time-span reduction preference rule 2):
Choose as the head of a time-span the chord (orthe note) which is relatively harmonicallyconsonant (segmental markedness)
C > C7 > … > Csus4 > Cdim
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
T im e ( s )0 0 .0 2
-0 . 5
0 . 5
0
F if th C - G
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
T i m e (s )0 0 .0 2
-0 . 5
0 . 5
0
C - G b
4
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
T im e ( s )0 0 .0 2
-0 . 5
0 . 5
0
F if th C - G
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
T im e ( s )0 0 .0 2
-0 . 5
0 . 5
0
F if th C - G
C vs C0
• C > Cdim
T i m e (s )0 0 .0 2
-0 . 5
0 . 5
0
C - G b
C vs C0
• wave C+G
T im e ( s )0 0 . 0 9 5 1 5 4 8
- 0 .9 5 3
0 .9 5 3
0
C vs C0
• wave C+Gb
T i m e ( s )0 0 . 0 9 4 5 9 1 3
- 0 . 9 9 8 7
0 . 9 9 8 7
0
Comparison preference rules
• Language:
Peak Prominence: stress the heaviest availablesyllable: CVVC; CVCC > CVC; CVV > CV
ki.dharas.baabreez.ga.rii
sa.mi.tiru.kaa.yaa
aas.maan.jaah
Stress assignment in Hindi: Peak Prom. >> Nonfinality
5
Comparison preference rules
• Music (time-span reduction preference rule 7):
Choose as the head of a time-span the chord (orthe note) which emphasizes the end of a group asa 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 & positionalmarkedness: same preference
(1;9)
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)
6
Assumption: insights from music theory can help usto describe some problematic cases of rhythmic
variability in phonology
• Question: Does a higher speaking rate leadto adjustment of the phonological structure
or are we only dealing with phoneticcompression?
• Phonetic compression is mainly shortening and mergingof vowels and consonants with preservation of thephonological structure.
Music: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm inaccelerated or sloppy playing
• Rhythmic restructuring:
dotted notes rhythm → triplet rhythm
120 bpm:
80 bpm:
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm inaccelerated or sloppy speaking
Zuidafrikaans (andante) Zuidafrikaans (allegro)
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm inaccelerated or sloppy speaking
Zuidafrikaans (andante)
Zuidafrikaans (allegro)
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm inaccelerated or sloppy speaking
fototoestel
andante
fototoestel
allegro
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm inaccelerated or sloppy speaking
Data: bijstandsuitkeringsgerechtigde
studietoelage
tijdsduurindeling
In fast speech it is more important to avoid clashes.
The triplet patterns in fast Dutch speech resemble the
patterns of Estonian rhythm
7
• Structural resemblance between language and music(cf. also Lasher (1978), Mallen (2000))
Every form of temporally ordered behaviour isstructured the same way
• Insights of music theory can help out in phonologicalissues
There are different OT-grammars for differentrates and styles of speaking
Conclusion