Advertisement

Does the Y-Model for Language Work for Music?

  • Oriol QuintanaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 943)

Abstract

The four main modules of the classic model for the faculty of language postulated in generative linguistics—lexicon, syntax, phonology/prosody and semantics—have been hypothesized to each have a (more or less abstract) equivalent module in the faculty of music. This hypothesis suggests that it should be possible to explain the way these modules interact—represented by the inverted-Y form of the model—in a similar fashion. I propose a refinement of Katz and Pesetsky’s (2011) hypothesis by suggesting that there are a number of common properties shared by the lexical systems of music and language, and it is precisely this that explains some of their fundamental syntactic similarities. What makes the two systems different is not primitively the properties of their lexical modules, but rather the radically different nature of their respective interpretive modules—semantics in the case of language (or, technically, the conceptual-intentional system), and the Tonal-Harmonic Component (THC) in the case of music.

Keywords

Language Music Syntax Computational system Semantics Harmony Inverted-Y model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been financed by a public grant from the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deportes of the Spanish government (FPU14/04707) and forms part of subproject FFI2014-56968-C4-1-P, financed by the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, and project 2017SGR-634, financed by AGAUR-Generalitat de Catalunya.

References

  1. Adger, D.: Core Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  2. Arbib, M.A. (ed.): Language, Music, and the Brain. A Mysterious Relationship. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, L.: The Unanswered Question. Six talks at Harvard. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1976)Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N.: The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitch, W.T.: The biology and evolution of music: a comparative perspective. Cognition 100, 173–215 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fodor, J.A.: The Modularity of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  7. Giblin, I.: Music and the Generative Enterprise. University of New South Wales, Sydney (2008)Google Scholar
  8. Grodzinsky, Y.: Neural substrates for linguistic and musical abilities: a neurolinguist’s perspective. In: Toivonen, I., Csúri, P., Van der Zee, E. (eds.) Structures in the Mind: Essays on Language, Music, and Cognition in Honor of Ray Jackendoff, pp. 325–346. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  9. Hamanaka, M., Hirata, K., Tojo, S.: Implementing methods for analysing music based on Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s Generative theory of tonal music. In: Meredith, D. (ed.) Computational Music Analysis, pp. 221–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25931-4_9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackendoff, R.: Parallels and nonparallels between language and music. Music Percept. 26(3), 195–204 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackendoff, R., Lerdahl, F.: The capacity for music: what is it, and what’s special about it? Cognition 100, 33–72 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Katz, J.: Exceptional cadential chords and the nature of tonic-marking. In: Halpert, C., Kotek, H., van Urk, C. (eds.) A Pesky Set: A festschrift for David Pesetsky, pp. 447–456. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge (2017)Google Scholar
  13. Katz, J., Pesetsky, D.: The Identity Thesis for Language and Music (2011). http://www.sfu.ca/~hedberg/katzEtAl_11_The-Identity-.3.pdf
  14. Lerdahl, F.: Tonal Pitch Space. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195178296.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lerdahl, F., Jackendoff, R.: A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. MIT Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  16. Lerdahl, F., Krumhansl, C.L.: Modeling tonal tension. Music Percept. 24(4), 329–366 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2007.24.4.329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McMullen, E., Saffran, J.R.: Music and language: a developmental comparison. Music Percept. 21(3), 289–311 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Patel, A.D.: Music, Language, and the Brain. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar
  19. Peretz, I.: The nature of music from a biological perspective. Cognition 100(1), 1–32 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rebuschat, P., Rohrmeier, M., Hawkins, J.A., Cross, I. (eds.): Language and Music as Cognitive Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  21. Rohrmeier, M.: A generative grammar approach to diatonic harmonic structure. In: Sound and Music Computing Conference, Lefkada, Greece, pp. 97–100 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. Rohrmeier, M.: Towards a generative syntax of tonal harmony. J. Math. Music 5(1), 35–53 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre de Lingüística TeòricaUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona (CLT-UAB)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations