2011
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020160
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Co-Variation of Tonality in the Music and Speech of Different Cultures

Abstract: Whereas the use of discrete pitch intervals is characteristic of most musical traditions, the size of the intervals and the way in which they are used is culturally specific. Here we examine the hypothesis that these differences arise because of a link between the tonal characteristics of a culture's music and its speech. We tested this idea by comparing pitch intervals in the traditional music of three tone language cultures (Chinese, Thai and Vietnamese) and three non-tone language cultures (American, French… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
18
0
5

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
18
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…From a neurobiologic perspective, this has some justification: like speech, music is a universal and uniquely human capacity, a highly specialized auditory code that generates potentially infinite permutations from a finite set of perceptual components according to culturally and (to some extent) neurobiologically sanctioned "rules" that distinguish these specialized acoustic signals from other kinds of sounds (Alossa and Castelli, 2009). There is a further complex interaction with more pervasive culturespecific influences, some of which appear to shape our perception of music from early infancy (Han et al, 2011). Formal analogies can be drawn between various attributes that are putatively shared between language and music, such as vocabulary, grammar and syntax (Feuchtwanger, 1930;Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983;Koelsch, 2005) and both language and music establish a rich spectrum of associated knowledge and memories based on accumulated experience.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From a neurobiologic perspective, this has some justification: like speech, music is a universal and uniquely human capacity, a highly specialized auditory code that generates potentially infinite permutations from a finite set of perceptual components according to culturally and (to some extent) neurobiologically sanctioned "rules" that distinguish these specialized acoustic signals from other kinds of sounds (Alossa and Castelli, 2009). There is a further complex interaction with more pervasive culturespecific influences, some of which appear to shape our perception of music from early infancy (Han et al, 2011). Formal analogies can be drawn between various attributes that are putatively shared between language and music, such as vocabulary, grammar and syntax (Feuchtwanger, 1930;Lerdahl and Jackendoff, 1983;Koelsch, 2005) and both language and music establish a rich spectrum of associated knowledge and memories based on accumulated experience.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…People with extensive musical expertise exhibited interval-discrimination thresholds of 100 cents, and non-musicians displayed larger thresholds [12], which: 1) corroborates McDermott et al's findings obtained with an adaptive procedure [13], and 2) suggests that an explicitly musical context in these studies may not influence the basic interval-discrimination thresholds in these groups. These thresholds may be established via repeated exposure to similar intervals in Western music and languages [14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Singing a song involves melodic articulation including rhythm and tonality, and as well as semantic perception of words and symbols, which are all required in daily verbal communication. The relationship between songs and speech has attracted increasing research interest from various perspectives [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Particular interest has been put on songs of tonal languages such as Chinese including Cantonese and Mandarin [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%