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