Jackendoff and Lerdahl A Generative Theory of Tonal Music

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 3.0 MB
First found May 22, 2018

Document content analysis

Category Also themed
Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Persons

Organizations

Places

Transcript

Rhythm and Phrasing
in Language and Music (part 1)
Outline
Dicky Gilbers & Maartje Schreuder
Paper available on
http://www.let.rug.nl/~gilbers/papers
http://www.let.rug.nl/~s chreudr/
F aculty of Arts
Department of Linguis tics
P.O. B ox 716
9700 AS Groningen
T he Netherlands
Jackendoff and Lerdahl
• 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
• 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:
rhythmic variability
A Generative Theory of Tonal Music
• 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
cf. Language
Synthesis of linguistic methodology and the
insights of music theory
• Our cognition thus works in a way comparable
to how a reader divides a text (often
unconciously too) into different parts
A Generative Theory of Tonal
Music
Preference Rules
(Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983)
• 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
• Preference rules indicate the optimal
interpretation of a piece
• 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
1
Optimality Theory
Potentially Conflicting, Soft Constraints
(Prince & Smolensky 1993)
• This evaluation system appears to be very
familiar to linguists
• In OT well-formedness constraints on
outputs also determine grammaticality
• In both theories well-formedness constraints
on outputs apply simultaneously to
representations of structures
• In both theories these constraints are
potentially conflicting and they are soft,
which means violable
Tuxedo Junction
motif
phrase
Structuring of the Domains
section
Prosodic Construction of a Phrase
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x x
Mis sis sip pi Del ta
s w s w s w
w
s
s
w
Comparison Preference Rules
syllable level
foot level
phrase level
2
Comparison preference rules 1
Arguments for trochaic feet
• 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)
Mispronunciations: Acquisition data:
narcis, parfum
• Language:
Choose the first σ in a Σ as the head
1;6
Comparison preference rules 2
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)
• 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
C
> C7
> … > Csus4
C vs C0
•
C
>
> Cdim
C vs C0
Cdim
•
C
F if th C - G
>
Cdim
C - G b
0 .5
0 .5
0
0
-0 . 5
-0 . 5
0
0 .0 2
T im e ( s )
0
0 .0 2
T im e (s )
3
C vs C0
•
C
>
C vs C0
Cdim
•
C
>
F if th C - G
Cdim
F if th C - G
0 .5
0 .5
0
0
-0 . 5
-0 . 5
0 .0 2
0
0 .0 2
0
T im e ( s )
T im e ( s )
C vs C0
•
C
>
C vs C0
Cdim
•
wave C+G
C - G b
0 .5
0 .9 5 3
0
0
- 0 .9 5 3
-0 . 5
0
0 .0 2
0.0 9 51 5 48
0
T im e ( s )
T im e (s )
C vs C0
•
Comparison preference rules
wave C+Gb
• Language:
Peak Prominence: stress the heaviest available
syllable:
CVVC; CVCC > CVC; CVV > CV
0 .9 9 8 7
ki.dhar
as.baab
reez.ga.rii
0
sa.mi.ti
ru.kaa.yaa
aas.maan.jaah
-0 . 9 9 8 7
0 .0 9 4 5 9 1 3
0
T im e (s )
Stress assignment in Hindi: Peak Prom. >> Nonfinality
4
Tonic - Dominant - Subdominant
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
C7-B
tonic > dominant > subdominant > parallel ...
C7-F
cadence
• cf. Language: Phrasal rule
• 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
Mozart: Sonata K.331, I
The A6-chord is in a metrically stronger position,
but E-chord is harmonically more consonant
Time-spans
constraints → TSRPR 7
TSRPR 2
TSRPR 1
candidates ↓
☛ E
*
A6
*!
*
Conflict TSRPR1 - TSRPR7
First Language Acquisition Data
Segmental markedness: /s/ > /x/
segmental & positional
markedness: same preference
Positional markedness: /x/ > /s/
syllabe
syllabe
(1;9)
(2;0)
pre-m.
s
onset
rhyme
onset
rhyme
margin
nucleus
margin
nucleus
m.core
k
b
t
satellite
l
r
peak
ѐ
o
u
satellite
coda
k
d
l
app.
pre-m.
s
m.core
x
satellite
peak
a
satellite
coda
p
app.
*Complex >> Pos. Markedness >> Segm. Markedness
5
Assumption: insights from music theory can help us
to describe some problematic cases of rhythmic
variability in phonology
• Question: Does a higher speaking rate lead
to adjustment of the phonological structure
or are we only dealing with phonetic
compression?
• Phonetic compression is mainly shortening and merging
of vowels and consonants with preservation of the
phonological structure.
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm in
accelerated or sloppy speaking
Zuidafrikaans (andante)
Music: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm in
accelerated or sloppy playing
• Rhythmic restructuring:
dotted notes rhythm → triplet rhythm
120 bpm:
80 bpm:
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm in
accelerated or sloppy speaking
Zuidafrikaans (allegro)
Zuidafrikaans (andante)
Zuidafrikaans (allegro)
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm in
accelerated or sloppy speaking
Language: Re-/misinterpretation of rhythm in
accelerated or sloppy speaking
Data: bijstandsuitkeringsgerechtigde
fototoestel
andante
fototoestel
allegro
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
6
Conclusion
• Structural resemblance between language and music
(cf. also Lasher (1978), Mallen (2000))
Every form of temporally ordered behaviour is
structured the same way
• Insights of music theory can help out in phonological
issues
There are different OT-grammars for different
rates and styles of speaking
7
×

Report this document