2. Language and Music in Optimality Theory

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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)

9. Structuring of the Domains

10. Tuxedo Junction motif section phrase

11. Prosodic Construction of a Phrase 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

12. 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

13. Language: phoneme <  (syllable) <  (foot) <  (phrase) ppapapade oude papa phoneme < morpheme < word < compound p-pjebloempjemuurbloempje Comparison structuring rules

14. Comparison Preference Rules

15. 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

16. Arguments for trochaic feet Neologisms: Acquisition data: Cito, Prolog, Brinta Mispronunciations: narcis, parfum 1;6

17. 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

18. 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 Stress assignment in Hindi: Peak Prom. >> Nonfinality

19. 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

20. C vs C 0 C > Cdim

21. C vs C 0 C > Cdim

22. C vs C 0 C > Cdim

23. C vs C 0 C > Cdim

24. C vs C 0 C > Cdim

25. C vs C 0 wave C+G

26. C vs C 0 wave C+Gb

27. 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

28. 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)

29. Time-span reduction Conflict TSRPR1 - TSRPR7 Mozart: Sonata K.331, I Time-spans

30. 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 *! * *

31. syllabe onsetrhyme marginnucleus pre-m. m.core satellitepeak satellite coda app. k l  k b r o d s t u l First Language Acquisition Data segmental & positional markedness: same preference

32. syllabe onsetrhyme marginnucleus pre-m. m.core satellitepeak satellite coda app. s x a p Segmental markedness: /s/ > /x/ Positional markedness: /x/ > /s/ *Complex >> Pos. Markedness >> Segm. Markedness (2;0)

33. 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