Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 16 2008, 6:24 PM EST (current) | fdell | 5 words added, 5 words deleted |
| Feb 16 2008, 11:16 AM EST | cecairns | 1 word added, 1 word deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
Singing and the syllable.
This question, composed by François Dell, is about how speech and song are related. Dell'sIn hypothesissome iswell-known thatcases the syllable is the basic unit for alignment to song. Does anyone knowsknow of singing traditions in which notes of song correspond not to syllables, but to moras, or to stress feet? Please contribute to the thread about Singing and the syllable.
What can singing teach us about language? One thing singing shows is the need for the notion of syllable. Singing involves a correspondence between a text and sequence of notes (a melody); see examples in (3), (4), (10) and (18) on the handout of my presentation. [Clicking on this link will download the pdf file of Dell's handout in some browsers, and simply open it in others.] In Dell's view, this correspondence is governed by the following principle (v. (5)):
BTP (Basic Textsetting Principle): Every SYLLABLE is linked to one and only one note (but not every note needs to be linked to a syllable), and different syllables may not be linked to the same note.
In the preceding formulation of the BTP, suppose we replace ‘syllable’ by some other linguistic chunk. The chunk in question could for instance be (A) a voiced vocoid (i.e. a voiced nonconsonantal segment) or (B) a maximal sequence containing only voiced vocoids. With (A), the word “Hawaiian” must be linked to five notes: [h<ə><w><a><j><ə>n]; with (B), it must be linked to one note: [h<əwajə>n]. Such ways of singing are presumably not attested in any language.
The BTP holds for languages as diverse as English, French, Tashlhiyt Berber, Mandarin Chinese, and Tagalog. Does it hold for all languages? Let us assume that it is a fact that cases (A) and (B) are not attested among the world’s singing traditions. The chunks in cases (A) and (B), are well-defined objects, but they are not genuine linguistic units, and maybe this is the reason why cases (A) and (B) don’t exist. What about genuine linguistic units such as moras or stress feet — are notes ever aligned with these units?
This question, composed by François Dell, is about how speech and song are related. Dell'sIn hypothesissome iswell-known thatcases the syllable is the basic unit for alignment to song. Does anyone knowsknow of singing traditions in which notes of song correspond not to syllables, but to moras, or to stress feet? Please contribute to the thread about Singing and the syllable.
What can singing teach us about language? One thing singing shows is the need for the notion of syllable. Singing involves a correspondence between a text and sequence of notes (a melody); see examples in (3), (4), (10) and (18) on the handout of my presentation. [Clicking on this link will download the pdf file of Dell's handout in some browsers, and simply open it in others.] In Dell's view, this correspondence is governed by the following principle (v. (5)):
BTP (Basic Textsetting Principle): Every SYLLABLE is linked to one and only one note (but not every note needs to be linked to a syllable), and different syllables may not be linked to the same note.
In the preceding formulation of the BTP, suppose we replace ‘syllable’ by some other linguistic chunk. The chunk in question could for instance be (A) a voiced vocoid (i.e. a voiced nonconsonantal segment) or (B) a maximal sequence containing only voiced vocoids. With (A), the word “Hawaiian” must be linked to five notes: [h<ə><w><a><j><ə>n]; with (B), it must be linked to one note: [h<əwajə>n]. Such ways of singing are presumably not attested in any language.
The BTP holds for languages as diverse as English, French, Tashlhiyt Berber, Mandarin Chinese, and Tagalog. Does it hold for all languages? Let us assume that it is a fact that cases (A) and (B) are not attested among the world’s singing traditions. The chunks in cases (A) and (B), are well-defined objects, but they are not genuine linguistic units, and maybe this is the reason why cases (A) and (B) don’t exist. What about genuine linguistic units such as moras or stress feet — are notes ever aligned with these units?
