Shall we resume saying how long we've been playing?

[MTGuru]

Regarding language and music, I think you have to be cautious about reading too much into what is, after all, just a pretty (though tempting) analogy. Serious attempts to apply linguistics models to a formal grammar of music have often been spectacularly unrewarding - Leonard Bernstein's "The Unanswered Question" being one salient example bordering on nonsense. (Though I can imagine other approaches that might be valid.)

As to language deterministically conditioning thought, the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis (which is essentially what was described above) is pretty thoroughly discredited as it stands, though underlying links between cognition and language are an ongoing issue.

And as to a correlation between a particular language and a particular music, especially instrumental music, I think you're on pretty thin ice as soon as you go beyond impressionistic reactions or certain surface details - such as the understandable interaction between a song's lyrics and its musical phrasing. For example, Irish and English word order (i.e., thematic order) are radically different, VSO versus SVO, yet the musical structures are largely similar. The tendency for Irish verbal inflection to rise at the end of statements is not reflected in the generally falling cadences of Irish music. Syllable-stressed languages do not produce evenly-stressed music. The musics of atonal languages are no less tonally rich than tonal idioms. Examples can be multiplied ad nauseum. In song traditions, it's as likely that verbal patterns will be altered to fit the music as vice-versa.

On the other hand, studies of infant babbling have shown that suprasegmental features of the matrix language (including intonation contours) are acquired long before talking begins. So you can't completely discount some interaction between early language acquisition and music acquisition.

Still, I think it's more useful to regard language and music as parallel but autonomous systems with their own independent structure and complexity, and to regard terms such as "accent" as a matter of terminological convenience and an appeal to the familiar, rather than as expressing deep underlying homologues.

In short, like Jem and cocus, I also think exposure to and immersion in the music itself matters far more than any language considerations. It's an interesting topic, though!

[Rob Sharer]

"Suprasegmental features of the matrix language?"

Good Christ.

[Aanvil]

"Suprasegmental features of the matrix language?"

Good Christ.

if mtguru = zeus then suprasegmental = lightning bolt

[Rob Sharer]

"Suprasegmental features of the matrix language?"

Good Christ.

if mtguru = zeus then suprasegmental = lightning bolt

:twisted:

And, by extension, my ass = grass?

Rob

[Darren]

Regarding language and music, I think you have to be cautious about reading too much into what is, after all, just a pretty (though tempting) analogy. Serious attempts to apply linguistics models to a formal grammar of music have often been spectacularly unrewarding - Leonard Bernstein's "The Unanswered Question" being one salient example bordering on nonsense. (Though I can imagine other approaches that might be valid.)

As to language deterministically conditioning thought, the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis (which is essentially what was described above) is pretty thoroughly discredited as it stands, though underlying links between cognition and language are an ongoing issue.

And as to a correlation between a particular language and a particular music, especially instrumental music, I think you're on pretty thin ice as soon as you go beyond impressionistic reactions or certain surface details - such as the understandable interaction between a song's lyrics and its musical phrasing. For example, Irish and English word order (i.e., thematic order) are radically different, VSO versus SVO, yet the musical structures are largely similar. The tendency for Irish verbal inflection to rise at the end of statements is not reflected in the generally falling cadences of Irish music. Syllable-stressed languages do not produce evenly-stressed music. The musics of atonal languages are no less tonally rich than tonal idioms. Examples can be multiplied ad nauseum. In song traditions, it's as likely that verbal patterns will be altered to fit the music as vice-versa.

On the other hand, studies of infant babbling have shown that suprasegmental features of the matrix language (including intonation contours) are acquired long before talking begins. So you can't completely discount some interaction between early language acquisition and music acquisition.

Still, I think it's more useful to regard language and music as parallel but autonomous systems with their own independent structure and complexity, and to regard terms such as "accent" as a matter of terminological convenience and an appeal to the familiar, rather than as expressing deep underlying homologues.

In short, like Jem and cocus, I also think exposure to and immersion in the music itself matters far more than any language considerations. It's an interesting topic, though!

pfft...he took the words right outta my mouth.

[Denny]

well, I liked it....

[jim stone]

To take the thing a step deeper, the question arises:
Why do we find music, rhythm, tonality, pleasant
and moving?

You know, lots of critters don't recognize music as
such, not to mention some people. It's rather a strange
thought that the 'beauty' of music is merely an artifact
of our particular neurology.

Anyhow I think I recall hearing the hypothesis that our sense of music
is an artifact (a side effect) of whatever it is in the
brain that enables us to speak and recognize
language--which would involve the recognition
of rhythms and syllables and tones and...

The theory is that music tickles the linguistic
sensibilities.

But also it provokes emotions! Why?

I wonder if anybody has an idea what's going on.
Anyway I guess I think our appreciation of music
wasn't selected for by evolution; it's an artifact of other capacities,
largely having to do with the ability to speak and understand
a language.

There's a story of a traveling fiddler who finds himself
shipwrecked in a storm at a lighthouse. The lighthouse keeper is
a hermit, an old man, who
has never heard music, it turns out. So the fiddler (a very good one) plays
him a violin concerto, the violin part, as the storm rages
outside the lighthouse. At the end of the performance,
the lighthouse keeper
thinks for awhile, then says:

'Yes, that's true.'

[Rob Sharer]

My reasons for rejecting the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis are simple: I don't trust Klingons.

[jim stone]

Well said.

One problem was that Whorf Sapir preceded a good deal
of linguistics, neurology and cog sci. It's sort of like
Pre-socratic physics--suggestive in a speculative way,
but there was no way to test it.

Some philosophers maintain there is an innate language
of thought, a sort of species wide machine-language
for the brain. Spoken languages are translated in
and out of it. If that's true then language certainly
does determine how we think, but it's the
Language of Thought.

I guess a difficulty is that, if there is an innate
language, one with a distinctive species wide
syntax (that's the theory) I suppose one would
expect natural languages to have the same
grammar, more or less. That is, we naturally would start
speaking, when humans did, in the grammar
of the innate language. And setting up different grammars
would create a translation problem, from the spoken
language into LOT and back again--and that would
take energy and time, which would constrain
'syntactic drift.' But there seems to be
extraordinary grammatical diversity in spoken
languages.

I don't think there is any good account of how
thought is possible.

Sorry, working too hard. Night all.

[MTGuru]

My reasons for rejecting the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis are simple: I don't trust Klingons.

You've got me sussed, Rob.

This business of language theory is, like, my line of work, sort of. So I can't help myself. Saints forgive me ...

[cocusflute]

This business of language theory is, like, my line of work, sort of. So I can't help myself.

Some people on this board could learn a lot from you. They really can't help themselves. At least you're aware of your own bull sh*t.

[kennychaffin]

My reasons for rejecting the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis are simple: I don't trust Klingons.

Yes, great point!

KAC

[LorenzoFlute]

great topic, i'm enjoing reading it

[rama]

On the other hand, studies of infant babbling have shown that suprasegmental features of the matrix language (including intonation contours) are acquired long before talking begins. So you can't completely discount some interaction between early language acquisition and music acquisition.

i've been babbling way longer than i've been playing flute. guess that means i must have great potential. the more babble the better fluter i shall be...

[dlambert]

Ron, I mean Rob....You're awesome. Dave, you take yourself way too seriously. Not like I haven't done some of that in my past here on the board, but lighten up man.

I'm personally a believer in the unified Kobayashi Maru theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru