Jackendoff and Lerdahl

(1)

Taal en Muziek in

Optimaliteitstheorie

• eerste uur:

OT als algemene cognitieve theorie taal en muziek

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

(2)

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 x Mis 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

(3)

• Language:

phoneme < σ(syllable) < Σ(foot) < ω(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 σin a Σas the head

Arguments for trochaic feet

Neologisms: Acquisition data:

Cito, Prolog, Brinta

Mispronunciations:

narcis, parfum

1;6

Comparison preference rules 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.dhar as.baab reez.ga.rii sa.mi.ti ru.kaa.yaa aas.maan.jaah

(4)

Comparison preference rules

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 C

0 • C > Cdim T i m e (s ) 0 0 .0 2 - 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 F i f th C - G

C vs C

0 • C > Cdim T i m e ( s ) 0 0 .0 2 - 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 C - G b

C vs C

0 • C > Cdim T i m e ( s ) 0 0 .0 2 - 0 . 5 0 . 5 0 C - G b

(5)

C vs C

0 • wave C+G T i m e ( s ) 0 0 . 0 9 5 1 5 4 8 - 0 .9 5 3 0 .9 5 3 0

C vs C

0 • 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

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 *! * *

(6)

syllabe

onset rhyme

margin nucleus

pre-m. m.core satellite peak satellite coda app. k l ѐ 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), Mallen (2000))

Every form of temporally ordered behaviour is structured the same way

Conclusion 1

LabPhon

Phonetics in Phonology

Outline

• Restructuring Rhythm Patterns:

• Phonological Analysis • Phonetic Evidence?

Paper available on http://www.let.rug.nl/~gilbers/papers

http://www.let.rug.nl/~schreudr/

Restructuring the melodic content of feet

(7)

• Topic: Rhythmic variability due to rate differences

• Phonologically-based Account • Experiment: Phonetic evidence?

Outline

Research 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

normal stretched

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 Zuidafrikaans

Blueberry hill Blueberry hill

Data

type 1: stú die tòe la ge→stú die toe là ge

‘study grant’ _{Rightward Stress Shift}

Data

‘study grant’

type 2: per fèc tio níst→pèr fec tio níst

(8)

Data

‘study grant’

type 2: per fèc tio níst→pèr fec tio níst

type 3: blùe bèr ry híll→blùe ber ry híll zùid à fri káans→zùid a fri káans

‘south african’ _{Beat Reduction}

Phonological Analysis in OT

Analysis based on conflict between: Output Output Correspondence

(cf. Burzio 1998)

Clash Avoidance (cf. Kager 1994)

Output Output Correspondence

x x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x

compensation condensation

s w s w s w s w

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x compensation condensation s w s w s w s w [ђ] *[ђ]

x x x x x x x x x compensate condense s w s w s [ђ] *[ђ]

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x compensation condensation s w s w s w s w [ђ] *[ђ]

(9)

zùidàfrikáans (andante) perfèctioníst stúdietòelage zùidafrikáans (allegro) pèrfectioníst stúdietoelàge 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

There are different OT-grammars for different rates and styles of speaking (???)

Phonetic Compression is not the sole explanation

In fast speech it is more important to avoid clashes. The triplet patterns in fast Dutch speech resemble the patterns of e.g. Estonian rhythm.

Conclusion 2

Phonetic Evidence?

Is there phonetic evidence for rhythmic restructuring in allegro speech?

Parameters stress: Duration Pitch

(Intensity) (Sluijter, 1995)

Phonetic Evidence?

Just Notable Differences:

Duration

JND: 4.5% (Eefting & Rietveld, 1989)

Pitch

JND: 2.5% (‘tHart et al, 1990)

variable stress patterns

Picture (PRAAT)

(10)

variable stress patterns

Picture (PRAAT)

stu die toe la ge

variable stress patterns

Picture (PRAAT)

stu die toe la ge stu die toe la ge

(1.164 ms) (0.85 ms) [u] [a] pitch 116.8 Hz 99.5 Hz duration 0.101 ms 0.169 ms intensity 85.7 dB 80.7 dB [u] [a] pitch 117.3 Hz 99.8 Hz duration 0.041 ms 0.143 ms intensity 80.7 dB 78.5 dB

variable stress patterns

Picture (PRAAT)

stu die toe la ge stu die toe la ge

(1.164 ms) (0.85 ms) multi-plying factor 1.37 [u] [a] pitch 116.8 Hz 99.5 Hz duration 0.101 ms 0.169 ms intensity 85.7 dB 80.7 dB [u] [a] pitch 117.3 Hz 99.8 Hz duration 0.056 ms 0.196 ms intensity 80.7 dB 78.5 dB